9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (6) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... constituted by four partners and one of the partners viz. Shri Prabhu Dayal, was minor on1st April, 1975but attained majority on2nd Jan., 1976and elected to become partner. The fact about the said partner viz. Shri Prabhu Dayal, being minor was not found out from the deed of partnership. The ITO found out this fact while processing the claim of the assessee vis-a-vis grant of the status of the registered firm. The ITO refused registration to the assessee for the assessment year under appeal with the following specific reasonings: "(i) On 1st April, 1975 when Shri Prabhu Dayal was said to have become partner alongwith other, he was a minor and not competent to enter into in contract. "(ii) Writing of partnership deed particularly a porti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive of the parties at length. We have also perused very carefully the orders of the lower authorities as also the paper-book since placed on our file, for an on behalf of the assessee which also contains a copy of the order of the Tribunal (Chandigarh Bench) made in ITA No. 1143/76-77 on relation to asst. yr. 1973-74 in the case of Jain Steel Rolling Mills vs. ITO the said order being dt.26th May, 1979and stands reported in All India Tax Tribunal Judgements Vol. VIII Oct., 1979. 5. The accounting period of the assessee, as appears from the assessment order for the assessment year under appeal, ended on31st March, 1976. The assessment has been framed in the status of 'URE'. On31st March, 1976, the said Shri Prabhu Dayal was a major having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... March, 1976, all the partners of the assessee-firm being major and the assessee-firm having profits, there is no infirmity attached and the facts of the assessee's case warrant that the assessee-firm merits to be registered as a registered firm, we hold thus and direct accordingly, with the result, the orders of the lower authorities stand modified to that extent. The status of the assessee for the assessment year under appeal shall be taken not as unregistered firm but as registered firm. 6. In coming to the above conclusion, we have derived the desired fortification from the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai (1965) 56 ITR 42 (SC) as also that of the Calcutta High Court in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
