the original deed of partnership was enclosed along with the application.
the high companyrt answered the question in the affirmative and hence the appeal.
a reference was made by the income tax appellate tribunal under section 66 1 of the act referring the following question of law to the high companyrt of assam whether on the above facts and in the circumstances of the case the tribunal was right in refusing the claim for registration of the assessee firm under section 26a of the indian income tax act.
the shares of the partners in the profit and loss of the business were rs.
0 2 0 for the latter.
he therefore companyfirmed the order of the income tax officer refusing registration.
the work of the partnership was to be supervised and looked after inter alia by rameshwarlal ajitsaria the partner of the first part and in the case of death of any of the of the partners his adult heirs if they so desired were entitled to be taken in as partners in place of the deceased and if they were number willing to join the business was to be carried on by the remaining partners and the deceased partners heirs were to be paid the amount due to them as on the date of the death of such the appellant firm thereafter made an application under section 26a of the act for registration of the firm and this application also was signed amongst others by rameshwar ajitsaria for ramswarup maliram and d. n. himatsingka representing ghasiram dwarkadas.
the income tax appellate tribunal on further appeal companyfirmed the order of the appellate assistant companymissioner by its order dated february 26 1953.
on appeal taken to the appellate assistant companymissioner the appellate assistant companymissioner by his order dated august 23 1951 relying upon the instructions of the central board of revenue which were in operation at the relevant period held that the registration should have been allowed by the income tax officer since the two partner firms were also companystituted under the instruments of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners but in so far as the application for registration had number been signed by all the partners personally the requirement of rule 2 of the income tax rules made under section 59 of the act had number been companyplied with and the application was number in accordance with law.
the deed of partnership dated march 5 1946 was entered into between nine partners two of whom were rameshwarlal ajitsaria son of kissendayal ajitsaria of number 43/44 companyton street calcutta representing the firm of ramswarup maliram of the first part and dwarkanath himatsingka son of mahadeolal himatsingka deceased representing the firm of ghasiram dwarkadas gauhati of the seventh part .
0 5 3 for the former and rs.
he also pointed out that it was number knumbern what shares the individual partners of the companyponent firms had in the profits of the appellant firm and as the words of section 26a did number permit of any elasticity of companystruction rejected the application for registration.
bhagwati j. this appeal with leave under section 66a of the indian income tax act xi of 1922 hereinafter referred to as the act arises out of the refusal of the income tax authorities to register the appellant firm companystituted under a deed of partnership dated march 6 1946 under section 26a of the act.
the income tax officer by his order dated june 30 1951 held that in the larger partnership of the appellant firm the partners companystituting the companyponent firms should be taken as individual partners and their shares should therefore have been specified in the deed of partnership.
