9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the partnership agreement due to the minor status of one partner at the commencement date. 2. Eligibility of the firm for registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of the Partnership Agreement The primary contention revolves around the validity of the partnership agreement due to the minor status of Navneet Rai at the deemed commencement date of the partnership, which was 1-4-1977. The partnership deed was executed on 15-7-1977, by which time Navneet Rai had attained majority. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the registration claim under section 185(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, stating that since Navneet Rai was a minor on 1-4-1977, the agreement was invalid ab initio, rendering the firm non est in law on that date. The ITO argued that the ratification of the oral agreement on 15-7-1977 did not confer legal status to the firm. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) reversed the ITO's decision, stating that although Navneet Rai was a minor on 1-4-1977, he had attained majority by the time the partnership deed was executed on 15-7-1977. The AAC opined that the firm was genuinely constituted and thus entitled to registration. Issue 2: Eligibility for Registration The revenue's appeal disputed the AAC's decision, arguing that the partnership deed's clause stating the partnership commenced from 1-4-1977 was detrimental to the registration claim. The departmental representative cited various case laws, including the Gujarat High Court decision in Bharat Prakashan v. CIT and the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Dwarkadas Khetan & Co., to support the revenue's stance. Contrarily, the assessee's counsel argued that for accounting purposes, the period could be considered from 1-4-1977, but the partnership deed executed on 15-7-1977, when both partners were majors, should be the basis for registration. The counsel also cited the Punjab High Court decision in B. N. Dheer & Sons v. CIT to bolster the claim. Tribunal's Findings The Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions and reviewing the facts, upheld the AAC's decision to grant registration from 15-7-1977 to 31-3-1978. The Tribunal noted that on 15-7-1977, both partners were majors, and the clause deeming the partnership to have commenced from 1-4-1977 did not invalidate the firm's registration. The Tribunal distinguished the case from the cited precedents, emphasizing that in the instant case, the partnership deed was executed when both partners were majors, unlike in the case of Dwarkadas Khetan & Co., where a minor was admitted as a full-fledged partner. The Tribunal also referenced the Punjab High Court's stance in B. N. Dheer & Sons, which supported the registration of a partnership even if it alleged a prior oral agreement. The Tribunal concluded that the mere recital of a previous oral partnership in the deed should not bar the firm's registration from the date of the instrument itself. The Tribunal also dismissed the relevance of the Gujarat High Court decision in Bharat Prakashan, highlighting that in the instant case, the partnership deed was executed after both partners attained majority. Conclusion The Tribunal directed that the assessee's claim for registration for the period from 15-7-1977 to 31-3-1978 be accepted, thus partly allowing the appeal. Result: The appeal is partly allowed.
|
