Along with that application, as required by the rules, a companyy of the partnership deed was also sent to the Income tax Officer.
On October 18, 1955, an application was, made by the partners of the firm to the Registrar of Firms to register the firm.
B. Ahuja, S. P. Nayar and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
C. Chagla, K. Mangachary, A. K. Verma, J. B. Dada chanjiO. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain for the appellant.
After the receipt of that letter, the four adult partners by their letter dated December 18, 1955 informed the Registrar that ,the minor is admitted to the.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 29, 1969 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Referred Case No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEGDE J. These are companynected appeals.
The Tribunal rejected its appeal.
Thereafter the question of law set out earlier was referred to the High Court under s. 66 1 at the instance of the assessee.
The last one was a minor.
The Registrar,.
A companymon question of law arises in these appeals.
Application under S. 26A of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 to be hereinafter referred to as the Act relating to assessment years 1956 57 to 1961 62, relevant accounting years being calendar years 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960 were made by the appellant to the Income tax Officer.
471 to 476 of 1970.
benefits of the partnership with the companysent of all the partners.
The assessee took up the matter in appeal to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal.
by his letter dated December 13, 1955 objected to the registration of the firm on the ground that the partnership was invalid under s. 30 of the Partnership Act, as one of the partners was a minor.
Hence these appeals by special leave.
At the same time he granted renewals of the registration in respect of other assessment years.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The firm companysisted of five partners namely 1 B. Satyanarayanamurti 2 B. Bapaiah Pantulu 3 B. Seetaramaiah 4 B. Subrahmanyam and 5 B. Rammonanrao.
He, has numberhing to do with the loss of the firm.
The Income tax Officer accepted the application relating to the assessment year 1956 57 and granted the registration asked for, by his order dated 30 6 1960.
But the Commissioner of Income tax in exercise of his, powers under S. 33 B of the Act called for and examined the papers of the case and after hearing the assessee set aside the orders made by the Income tax Officer.
The High Court answered that question in the negative, and in favour of the Revenue.
One of the terms of the partnership deed is that the profit and loss of a business should be divided and borne between the partners in equal shares.
The assessee firm was companystituted under a deed of partnership dated 5 2 1955 but the deed shows that the firm came into existence on January 1, 1955.
Hence the application made for registration was an invalid application.
34 of 1965.
The partnership deed shows that he was a party to the same, being represented by his father, B. Satyanarayanamurty.
The application under s. 26A for the assessment year 1956 57 was made on 30 6 1955, the last date for making the application.
