1993 (2) TMI 65

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has prayed for a direction to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Kozhikode Bench, to refer the following questions of law, formulated in paragraph 7 of the original petitions, for the decision of this court. This was necessitated, since the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, by a common order dated April 3, 1984, for the years 1975-76 and 1976-77, declined to refer the questions of law for the decision of this court : "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing to allow registration to the firm when the partnership deed was defective ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the defect in the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....quent year. In declining registration to the firm, the assessing authority relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Addl. CIT v. Uttam Kumar Promod Kumar [1974] 97 ITR 730. The Appellate Tribunal distinguished the said decision and held that since the guardian had consented, or agreed to the admission of the minor to the benefits of the partnership, the defect, if any, is cured and the firm is entitled to registration. According to the Appellate Tribunal, the fact that the assessing authority did not question the genuineness of the firm is a cogent factor. The initial defect, if any, in the non-junction of the guardian stood cured by his subsequent consent. The Appellate Tribunal referred to the decision of the Allahabad High C....