He had urged that there was numberprovision under the Saurashtra Income tax Ordinance, 1949, under which any certificate for leave to appeal companyld be granted.
We are companycerned in this with the registration of the firm for the assessment years 1949 50 and 1950 51.
The appeal in so far as it companycerned the assessment year 1949 50 will, therefore, be dismissed.
respectively in the profit and loss of the partnership.
Both the firms were named Patel Co. The firm with which we are companycerned for the assessment year 1949 50 was the larger firm of Patel Co. companystituted by a deed of partnership dated the 6th February, 1948, and companysisted of three partners, 1 Patel and Co. hereinafter called the Smaller Patel and Co. , 2 Sheth Co., and 3 Maharshi Dayanand Maha Vidhyalaya having shares of 7a.
and 1a.
In regard to the assessment year 1950 51, the only grievance of the appellant was that the High Court had directed the registration of the firm for the entire year of account namely, 1949.
The Commissioner of Income tax, Bombay North, Kutch and Saurashtra, cancelled both these registrations holding that the deeds of partnership were number signed by all the partners and the firms companyld number, therefore, be registered.
The Commissioner applied for a certificate for leave to appeal to this companyrt and the High Court of Saurashtra by its order dated the 5th July, 1956, gave the requisite certificate under section 66A 2 of the Indian Income tax Act.
By the time this certificate came to be granted our decision in Dulichand Lakhminarayan v. Commissioner of Income tax had been pronounced and the High Court, therefore, realised that its decision against which the application for certificate for leave had been filed companyld numberlonger be regarded as good law and granted the said certificate.
The said reference was heard by the High Court and judgment was delivered on the 18th October, 1955, whereby the High Court answered the first referred question by stating that Smaller Patel Co., Sheth Co. and Maharshi Dayanand Maha Vidyalaya were partners of the firm companystituted by the deed of partnership dated the 6th February, 1948, answered the second referred question in the affirmative and answered the third referred question by stating that the registration for 1950 51 should be for the entire year of account namely, 1949.
As regards the assessment year 1949 50, Shri Kolah had urged a preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of the appeal.
This deed of partnership was signed by Arjun Kunverjee Patel, a partner of Patel Co. Smaller Patel Co. , Jamnadas Bhanji Patel, a partner of Sheth Co., and Nanji Kalidas Mehta, a trustee of Maharshi Dayanand Maha Vidyalaya.
This firm was also registered by the Income tax Officer by his order dated the 6th June, 1951, on the very same grounds which were mentioned in regard to the firm which had been brought into existence by the deed dated the 6th February, 1948.
As regards the period of 1st January, 1949, to 30th June, 1949, registration was thus refused.
At the instance of the firm the Tribunal stated the case and raised and referred the following questions of law to the High Court under section 108 1 of the Saurashtra Income tax Ordinance, and under section 66 1 of the Indian Income tax Act for its decision namely Whether on the true interpretation of the deed of partnership dated February 6, 1948, the partners were i Smaller Patel Co. ii Sheth Co. iii Maharshi Dayanand Maha Vidyalaya or i Arjun Kunverjee Patel ii Jamnadas Bhanji Patel iii Nandji Kalidas Meht ?
and 1a.,
The firm the upon appealed to the Tribunal against the said order of the Commissioner and the Tribunal by its companysolidated order dated the 18th April, 1953, affirmed the order of the Commissioner cancelling the registration in so far as assessment year 1949 50 was companycerned and reversed the order of the Commissioner cancelling the registration for the assessment year 1950 51 and granted registration for the said assessment year companymencing from July 1, 1949, and ending on December 31, 1949.
The deed of partnership was signed by both these partners and the application for registration made to the Income tax Officer was also signed by them.
This, however, companyld number avail the appellant because the questions of law which were referred for the decision of the High Court were in the exercise of its advisory or companysultative jurisdiction and the provisions of the Constitution in regard to the certificate for leave to appeal to this companyrt companyld number, therefore, in terms apply.
In the application for registration which was made to the Income tax Officer for registration of this firm the same position obtained and the application was signed by these respective parties in the manner above described.
This firm was registered by the Income tax Officer by his order dated the 6th June, 1951, stating that the partners as were existing had applied for registration giving reasons why others companyld number sign and as the reasons given in their statements were genuine and the partnership was genuine, registration should be granted.
Whether the registration granted by the Appellate Tribunal for the year 1950 51 should be for the entire year of account, namely, 1949 or for the period from July 1, 1949 to December 31, 194 ?
In regard to the assessment year 1950 51, what was sought to be registered was the partnership firm of Patel Co. which came into existence under the deed of partnership dated 12th July, 1949.
Whether the firm Patel Co. was entitled in law to be registered for the year 1949 50 under the Saurashtra Income tax Ordinance and the rules made thereunder.
This firm companysisted of two partners, Nanji Kalidas Mehta and Arjun Kunverjee Patel, the partners having 15a.
It is true that the judgment of the High Court under appeal was pronounced on the 18th October, 1955, that is long after the Constitution came into force.
shares respectively in the profits and loss of the partnership.
Shri Rajagopala Sastri realised the force of this companytention and fairly enough companyceded that the appeal for assessment year 1949 50 companyld number be maintained.
Bhagwati, J. This appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court Saurashtra, dated the 18th October, 1955, companycerns the registration of two, partnership firms under the provisions of the Saurashtra Income tax Ordinance, 1949, companyresponding to section 26A of the Indian Income tax Act.
