1972 (4) TMI 15 - HC - Income Tax

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm is entitled to registration - business is not yet commenced - actual existence of a business carried on by the partners is essential to constitute partnership. Since the business contemplated under the partnership deed did not commerce during the relevant accounting period, it cannot be said that there was in existence any partnership. The Tribunal therefore, was right in rejecting the application for registration

Summary

Issues:
Whether the assessee-firm is entitled to registration under section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on the partnership deed and business activities during the relevant accounting year.

Analysis:
The High Court of Karnataka deliberated on the issue of registration of the assessee-firm under section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee had applied for registration in the assessment year 1967-68, but the Income-tax Officer rejected the application, considering the assessee as an "association of persons." This decision was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The partnership deed indicated the business activities to be carried out, which included being excise contractors. However, during the relevant accounting year, the business as per the partnership deed was not commenced, and the investments made by the assessee with another firm were not considered as carrying on business under the partnership terms.

The main contention revolved around the interpretation of section 185 of the Income-tax Act, which outlines the conditions for granting registration to a firm. The court referred to the Supreme Court decisions in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sivakasi Match Exporting Co. and Commissioner of Income-tax v. A. Abdul Rahim and Co., emphasizing the importance of the genuineness of the firm and its legal existence as per the partnership deed. The court highlighted that the actual existence of a business carried out by the partners is crucial to establish a partnership, as defined under the Partnership Act.

The court agreed with the revenue's argument that the existence of a business is fundamental for the legal existence of a firm. Since the business activities specified in the partnership deed were not initiated during the relevant accounting period, the court concluded that there was no partnership in existence as per the Partnership Act. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to reject the application for registration was deemed appropriate. Consequently, the court answered the question of the entitlement to registration in the negative, ruling against the assessee and ordering them to pay the costs of the respondent along with the advocate's fee.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the significance of actual business operations in determining the legal existence of a partnership for registration purposes under the Income-tax Act. The decision underscored the necessity for the business activities outlined in the partnership deed to be actively pursued to establish the existence of a partnership.