1. This is a reference u/s 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; at the instance of the Revenue and the following questions of law have been
referred by the Tribunal for answer of this court :
(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the original deed dated November
14, 1955, together with the endorsement dated September 10, 1961, will constitute an instrument of partnership for purpose of registration ?
(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that there was no change in the
constitution of the firm and the assessee was entitled to continuation of registration of the firm for the assessment year 1962-63 ?
2. The brief facts giving rise to this reference are thus : Under a deed of partnership dated November 14, 1955, the assessee-firm was constituted
with the following three partners, namely :
Share in profit in loss
1. Rajaram Adatia 0-2-3 3/7th 054
2. Hiralal Adatia 0-2-3 3/7th 0-5-4
3. Hanuman Prasad Adatia 0-2-3 3/7th 0-5-4
0-6-10 2/7th 0164
3. The above partners also agreed to admit the following minor persons to the benefits of the partnership and to allow the shares in profits only to
them in the ratio noted against their names :
1. Ramachandra 0-2-3 3/7th
2. Awadhbihari 0-2-3 3/7th
3. Prakashchandra 0-2-3 3/7th
4. Subhash Chandra 0-2-3 3/7th
4. The firm was allowed registration and renewal of registration from the assessment year 1957-58 to 1961-62. Ramachandra, minor, attained
majority on March 15, 1961, and he is stated to have opted to continue as a partner in the firm for the assessment year under consideration. The
assessee-firm sought renewal of registration by filing application in Form No. 11, dated June 29, 1962, wherein it had been, inter alia, stated that
Ramachandra would have 1/4th share in the firm in the event of losses. Before the Income Tax Officer, it was urged that there had been no change
in the constitution of the firm as is specified in the instrument of partnership but the Income Tax Officer rejected such contention. It is further alleged
that Ramachandra was to have 1/4th share in the losses of the firm with effect from the date of his attaining majority had wrongly been stated and
should be ignored. The Income Tax Officer, however, took the view that there had been a change in the constitution of the firm but such change
with the specification of the shares of the partners in the profits and losses of the firm was not evidenced by any document of partnership.
Therefore, he refused registration to the assessee-firm and on appeal, the order of the Income Tax Officer was upheld by the Appellate Assistant
Commissioner.
5. Aggrieved against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the matter was taken up before the Tribunal in second appeal and the
Tribunal restored the matter back to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for a fresh decision. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner considered
the matter afresh and confirmed the action of the Income Tax Officer of refusing registration to the firm. The assessee again preferred an appeal to
the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal took the view that on the original deed of partnership, Ramachandra, on attaining majority, had
made an endorsement assenting to the terms of the agreement therein, wherein he had accepted his share in the profits at 2 annas 3 pies and no
share in loss. However, the Tribunal did not agree with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and took the view that the endorsement made by
Ramachandra on the partnership deed should be sufficient to constitute a fresh partnership and it was observed by the Tribunal that though in the
application in Form No. 11, the 1/4th share of Ramachandra had not been mentioned, that was a mistake that could be rectified by the assessee.
The Tribunal directed the Income Tax Officer to allow an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the said mistake in Form No. 11 and on such
rectification, the firm may be allowed continuation of its registration. Then, in these circumstances, the Revenue moved an application before the
Tribunal for sending a reference to this court and the aforesaid two questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal for answer of this court.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. In fact, the assessee moved two applications, one in Form No. 12 for
seeking continuation of registration of the firm and the second in Form No. 11 for grant of a fresh registration. So far as the application for grant of
continuation of registration is concerned, it was rejected and so far as the grant of a fresh registration is concerned, the application in Form No. 11
was found to be belated by the Income Tax Officer and the Income Tax Officer observed that it was barred by time and thus, incompetent. The
Appellate Assistant Commissioner affirmed it and ultimately the matter reached again before the Tribunal. It appears that the Tribunal has not
properly expressed itself in the operative portion of the paragraph which is just demonstrated. In fact, the matter which was argued before the
Tribunal, was regarding grant of fresh registration on attainment of majority by Ramachandra and Ramachandra on attaining majority had made the
endorsement on the partnership deed that he may be inducted into the partnership with the share of 2 annas 3 pies and he had accepted the other
terms and conditions. But, of course, in the application Form No. 11 which was filed, he did not fill the loss which he agreed to share and which
should have been given in the schedule in Form No. 11. It is also apparent that the Tribunal has not addressed itself to the question that the
application in Form No. 11 for grant of fresh registration was belated and whether the Tribunal has condoned the delay or not. Be that as it may,
this question is not before us and we proceed on the assumption that the Tribunal has condoned the delay while granting relief to the assessee by
directing rectification of Form No. 11. As a matter of fact u/s 30(5) of the Partnership Act, when the minor attains majority, within six months, the
minor may give public notice that he has elected to become or not to become a partner in the firm and such a notice shall determine his status in the
firm and as per the proviso, if he fails to give such a notice, he shall become a partner in the firm on the expiry of the period of six months from the
date of attaining majority. But, in the present case, he has made the endorsement on September 10, 1961, showing him to be inducted as a partner
of the firm. Therefore, on the date he made the endorsement and elected to be inducted as a partner of the firm, the firm had come into existence
and there was no impediment in granting registration to the firm. Therefore, the firm has come into existence from the date, i.e., September 10,
1961, when Ramachandra who was minor on attaining majority, elected within six months to be inducted as a partner in the firm. Now, the
question is whether this firm has registration or not. As pointed out earlier, the application moved by the assessee in Form No. 11 was belated but
this aspect has not been adverted to by the Tribunal. Therefore, it is presumed that by mistake the Tribunal has condoned the delay. Now, on the
basis of this, the firm can be granted registration. Though the Tribunal has observed in the last paragraph that the Income Tax Officer shall allow
opportunity to the assessee to rectify the mistake in Form No. 11, it is not a case of grant of continuation. This will be a grant of fresh registration
u/s 185 and not continuation of registration u/s 184(7). Therefore, in this view of the matter, we hold that the Income Tax Officer may grant fresh
registration to the assessee-firm on rectification of Form No. 11 as directed by the Tribunal.
7. Shri Abhay Sapre, learned counsel for the. Revenue, has invited our attention to the decisions of this court given in Commissioner of Income
Tax Vs. Durgaprasad Rajaram Adatiya, and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ghanshyam General Stores, . Suffice it to say that both the cases
do not support the contention of learned counsel for the Revenue as they relate to the grant of continuation of registration and not to the question
regarding registration of the partnership-firm. Therefore, this will be a grant of fresh registration u/s 185 and not continuance of registration u/s
184(7) of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the first question in favour of the assessee with the modification as mentioned above that the
endorsement constitutes a fresh partnership for the purpose of registration u/s 185. The second question does not arise in this matter because the
Tribunal has not entertained this question in granting of continuation of registration. Obviously, when the first question has been answered in favour
of the assessee for grant of a fresh registration, the answer to the second question does not arise in the matter. Accordingly, the first question is
answered in favour of the assessee with the modification that the Income Tax Officer shall allow opportunity to the assessee to rectify the said
mistake in Form No. 11 as directed by the Tribunal and grant registration to the firm accordingly.