9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of changes in the constitution of a firm under sections 184(7) and 184(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 when a minor attains majority and remains a partner. 2. Validity of cancellation of assessment order without cancelling the firm's renewal of registration. Analysis: The High Court of Allahabad was presented with a case involving the interpretation of changes in the constitution of a firm under sections 184(7) and 184(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 when a minor attains majority and chooses to continue as a partner. The firm in question had a partnership deed with four partners, including a minor, with equal profit shares. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal initially canceled the firm's registration for the assessment year 1968-69 as the minor partner had attained majority without executing a fresh partnership deed. The Addl. Commissioner upheld this decision, leading to an appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. The Tribunal affirmed the cancellation of registration, stating that the firm was not entitled to be assessed as a registered firm due to the change in partnership composition. The assessee then approached the High Court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, seeking a reference on the matter. Regarding the first issue, the High Court referred to the Full Bench decision in Badri Narain Kashi Prasad v. Addl. CIT [1978] 115 ITR 858, which overruled the previous decision and clarified that registration granted to a firm remains valid for subsequent years if there is no change in the constitution or partners' shares as per the partnership deed. The court emphasized that a minor admitted to the benefits of a partnership is considered a partner under the Act. In this case, the partnership deed indicated equal profit sharing among partners, including the minor, even after his majority. As the deed did not show any change in the constitution or shares, the court ruled that there was no alteration in the firm's constitution under sections 184(7) and 184(2) when the minor partner became a major and continued in the partnership. The second issue, regarding the validity of canceling the assessment order without revoking the firm's registration renewal, was not addressed by the court as the first question was answered in favor of the assessee. Both parties agreed that a negative response to the first question would also lead to a negative answer for the second question. Consequently, the court left the second question unanswered. As the assessee substantially succeeded in the case, the Commissioner was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee, assessed at Rs. 250.
|
