TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (1) TMI 74
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to continue as a full-fledged partner. For both these changes two separate partnership deeds dt. 15th June, 1976 and 28th July, 1976 respectively were executed. As per r.22(2)(i) the registration application in Form No. 11A duly signed by all the partners together with original instrument evidenced in the partnership had to be made before the end of the previous year, i.e. before 22nd Oct., 1976. However, on 21st Oct., 1976 a letter addressed to the ITO was written by the firm stating, inter alia, that the partnership deed in Form Nos. 11 and 11A were signed by all the partners except two who had not signed the forms and the partnership deed because of a dispute between these two persons on one side and the remaining partners on the othe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the deed before the assessment was completed and that in the subsequent year the registration has been granted on the basis of the very same partnership deed. The CIT (A) has also noted that the assessment of all the 19 partners of the firm had been completed before the assessment of the firm was finalised. Citing the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Murlidhar Jhawar and Purna Ginning & Pressing Factory (1966) 60 ITR 95 (SC), he has observed that the partners of an unregistered firm might be assessed individually or they might be assessed collectively in the status of URF but their income could not be assessed twice: once in the hands of the partners and again in the hands of unregistered firm. The CIT (A) therefore di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g read by the ITO and by the Revenue as if after the words 'evidencing partnership' the words 'signed by all the partners' were included therein which is erroneous. He has also urged that the partnership in question was continuing because the partners who had refused to sign on the fresh deed were partners before the date of the new partnership deed and they had signed subsequently on the same partnership deed. He has also relied on the ground on which the CIT (A) has passed his order, namely, the registration of the partnership in subsequent assessment year of the same partnership and the assessments of all the partners. 6. In this case, the first point is that before the last date, i.e., 22nd Oct., 1976 two persons who were supposed to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he present case the dissenting partners had not done any such thing at the required time. Further, s. 184 states that the application for registration can be made if the partnership is evidenced by an instrument and the individual shares are specified in that instrument. This does not mean that there should be only one instrument or deed to evidence the partnership but that there should be documentary evidence to prove the partnership. Therefore, his contention that the Revenue is importing the words "signed be all the partners" in s. 184(5) is not tenable. Since two persons had not signed the deed and there was no document to show that they were partners, the conditions in s. 184(1) were not satisfied. Nor could subsequent signatures by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... There is, however, one flaw in the proceedings, which, in our view, is fatal to the Revenue case. For the assessment year in question 15 persons, who had signed the partnership deed had shown their share income in the firm as share from the partnership firm in their returns. The returns have been finalised and their share income in the firm has been assessed and taxed as income from registered firm. The Gujarat High Court in Laxmichand Hirjibhai vs. CIT (1981) 21 CTR (Guj) 181 : (1981) 128 ITR 747 (Guj) has held that once the partners of the firm or any partner of the firm has been individually assessed, so far as his income in the shape of share from the profits of the firm is concerned, the unregistered firm cannot be taxed in respect o....