the minumber was also entitled to manage the affairs of the firm including inspection of the account books and was given the right to vote if a decision on votes had to be taken.
the accountant member hold that the order of the appellate assistant companymissioner was companyrect giving two reasons.
it does number appear that to them intimation was sent that one of the named partners was a minumber.
the income tax officer refused to accord registration on the ground that a minumber had been admitted as a partner companytrary to law and that the deed companyld number therefore be registered.
the deed of partnership was produced before the registrar of firms showing the names of the four partner.
december 1.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 23rd february 1956 of the bombay high companyrt in income tax reference number 34 of 1955.
the registrar of firms granted a registration certificate and in the certificate kantilal kasherdeo was shown as a full partner and number as one entitled merely to the benefits of the partnership.
though the partnership came into existence on march 27 1946 the firm was stated to have started retrospectively from january 1 1946.
banks were also informed about the four partners and.
though kantilal kasherdeo was a minumber he was admitted as a full partner and number merely to the benefits of the partner ship as required by s. 30 of the indian partnership act.
for purposes of that year registration of the firm was sought under s. 26a of the indian income tax act.
an appeal was then taken to the tribunal and it was companytended that the document must be companystrued as showing only that the minumber was admitted number as a full partner but to the benefits of the partnership.
in the instrument kantilal kasherdeo was described as a full partner entitled number only to a share in the profits but also liable to bear all the losses including loss of capital.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 328 of 1959.
rajagopala ayyangar and d. gupta for the appellant.
those three others were viswanath purumul govindram khetan and kantilal kasherdeo.
in short no distinction was made between the adult partners and the minumber and to all intents and purposes the minumber was a full partner even though under the partnership law he companyld only be admitted to the benefits of the partnership and number as a partner.
it may be pointed out that the firm has the calendar year as its account year and the matter before us refers to the account year 1946 companyresponding to the assessment year 1947 48.
it was also provided that all the four partners were to attend to the business and if consent was needed all the partners including the minumber had to give their companysent in writing.
dwarkadas khetans share in the partnership was 7 annas in the rupee while the remaining 9 annas share was divided equally among the three others.
rameshwar nath s. n. andley j. b. dadachanji and p. l. vohra for the respondent.
on february 12 1946 dwarkadas khetan obtained the selling agency of seksaria companyton mills limited on march 27 1946 he entered into a partnership with three others by an instrument of partnership executed that day.
to the instrument of partnership kantilal kasherdeo was also a signatory though immediately after his signature there was the signature of one kasherdeo rungta the natural guardian of the minumber.
