1981 (12) TMI 23

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... January, 1969. The firm was granted registration under the I.T. Act not only for the assessment years up to 1964-65, but also for the subsequent years up to 1968-69, although the term fixed by the partnership deed had expired in those years. The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-II, passed an order under S. 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, cancelling the continuation of the registration for the assessment year 1968-69. He was of the opinion that the ITO was not right in law in continuing the registration and, accordingly, he directed the ITO to treat the assessee as an unregistered firm for the year 1968-69. There was an appeal to the Tribunal, which was accepted. The Tribunal was of the view that the conditions set out in s. 18....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....p Act even without a fresh deed. Reliance was also placed on Nawab & Brothers v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 307 (MP), where it was held that if a partner retires and no new partnership deed is drawn up, then a renewal cannot be granted. Lastly, reference was made to Durgaprasad Rajaram Adatiya v. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 601 (MP), wherein it was held that if a minor became a partner on attaining majority and there was no fresh partnership deed, then the firm could not be registered. We are of the view that these judgments are not applicable to the questions which have arisen in the present case. The observations in the Patna case were obiter, and have been distinguished in a similar case as the one before us, by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the parties. This means that even if there is a contract providing for dissolution on particular date, that term of the partnership is subject to further contract between the parties. The parties may agree to continue the period or continue the partnership in some other way even after the specified date of dissolution. Thus, there is a distinct possibility of the firm being carried on even after the specified dissolution date either because s. 17(b) of the Partnership Act provides for it or, because the parties mutually agreed that the partnership should continue notwithstanding the expiry of the fixed term. The provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961, as they now stand, require that registration should be continued if the conditions provided b....