9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (9) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ood industry. There were five partners, having the following shares : 1. Sajjan Kr. Bhajanka 30% 2. Prem Kr. Bhajanka 20% 3. Nirmal Kr. Bhajanka 20% 4. Smt. Bimla Devi Chamaria 15% 5. Smt. Sangita Devi Chamaria 15% The ITO found that on the date of commencement of the partnership business as also during a major part of the accounting year (1981-82 financial year), the partner at Sl. No. (5) above remained a minor even though on the date the partnership deed was executed Km. Sangita Devi Chamaria was a major. The assessee's application for registration under Form No. 11 which was submitted on 24-3-1982 before the ITO was signed by all the partners including Km. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l agreement was entered into by the parties concerned for carrying on business w.e.f. 1-1-1981. The contracting parties, it has been pointed out, could only be the persons who were legally entitled to enter into an agreement. It was stated that the parties competent to enter into the agreement for carrying on business intended to admit Km. Sangita as a partner on her attainment of majority. According to the learned counsel, Km. Sangita was admitted to the benefits of partnership and as soon as she attained majority, the partnership deed was executed for which registration was sought by submission of an application in Form No. 11 within the time stipulated. It has been pointed out that for the period 1-1-1981 to 31-3-1981, i.e., for the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered the question whether a firm in which a minor admitted to the benefits of partnership and attaining majority during the relevant previous year but electing to become partner w.e.f. 1st day of previous year next after the date of attaining majority could be granted registration under section 185(1)(a). It was held that under the provisions of the Partnership Act, a minor admitted to the benefits of partnership had two options open to him on attaining majority; (i) he should either elect to become a partner in the firm, or (ii) he should repudiate or elect not to become a partner. It has been observed at page 559 that "the cumulative effect of sections 184 and 185 of the Act read with the relevant rules is that if the application for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was, therefore, in order and in accordance with the partnership deed. In the case of CIT v. Phair Laboratories [1985] 154 ITR 141 (Ker.)(FB), it was held that a firm which was created by word of mouth but the constitution of which was subsequently reduced in writing could very well qualify for registration. All the requirements was that there should be a valid instrument of partnership at the relevant time, i.e., during the year previous to the assessment year when registration was sought. In that case, one C. V. Cyriac was a minor at the time of execution of the partnership deed dated 10-12-1963. He reached the age of majority on 26-7-1964. For the assessment year 1966-67, an application in form No. 11 was filed which was signed by all th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
