9911796707
TMI Blog1953 (6) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces. In 1937 a partnership was entered into of which the partners were five individuals and ten units who were different Hindu undivided families. As some doubts arose in regard to the legality of this partnership, on the 18th of July, 1942, there was a reconstituted firm having fifteen partners 10 of whom were the managers of the Hindu undivided families and 5 were the other individuals. Sohan Lal who was a partner in this firm died and a new partners ship was entered into on the 28th of June, 1945, and one of the partners was Sohan Lal's son Satish Kumar who is described as No. 6 in the partnership deed as Satish Kumar minor son of Lala Sohan Lal B.Sc, by his guardian and mother Shrimati Shakuntala Devi residing at Ferozepore Ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The matter was taken on appeal to the Appellate Tribunal who by an order dated 1st August, 1950, upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner but on a different ground. It held that as a minor had become a partner and had not merely been admitted to the benefits of the partnership no valid partnership had been constituted and therefore the partnership could not be registered. The assessee then applied for statement of the case to the High Court and raised four questions which are printed on page 25 of the paper book. On the 31st March, 1951, a draft statement was prepared and sent to the assessee and by an application dated the 27th April, 1951, the assessee asked for the modification of the question of law to be raised. The modified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly framed has been submitted for the opinion of this Court. According to Section 30 of the Partnership Act, a person who is a minor cannot be a partner in a firm but with the consent of all the partners he may be admitted to the benefits of partnership, and certain consequences follow, one of them being that the minor is not personally liable for the acts of the firm and he cannot sue the partners of the firm for accounts or for the payment of his share of the property or profits except when he is severing his connections with the firm. The other consequences as a result of his choosing to become a partner or not choosing to become a partner when he attains the age of majority are not relevant for the purposes of this case. As the incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have a deed of partnership where a minor is a sharer in profits and liable for losses of the business. At page 275 it was observed by Satyanarayana Rao, J.,- Lakshminarayana and Krishnamurti were willing to admit the minor to the benefits of the partnership, and in fact in the accounts they opened a ledger page in his name and entered the profits earned on his behalf for the two years. We think, therefore, that too rigid a construction of the document need not be placed, and that the real intention of the parties can be gathered from the document and from their conduct in crediting the profits in the accounts . In the second case which was relied upon, Vincent and Others v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras [1952] 22 ITR 285, a te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... findings of the Tribunal are binding on the Court and no question which has not been referred to the Court can be raised unless it was raised in the first instance before the Tribunal. At page 1009 it was said in this judgment: - All these cases show that the jurisdiction of the High Court can only be exercised in accordance with the provisions of Section 66 of the Income-tax Act and all formalities must be observed before a question is raised, and unless and until a question is duly referred to the High Court under the provisions of Section 66(1) or the High Court calls upon the Appellate Tribunal to refer under Section 66(2) the High Court is incompetent to raise any question suo motu . No question of a different interpretation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Courts themselves. In Rajendrr Narayan Bhanja Deo v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar [1940] 8 ITR 495 (P.C.), their Lordships of the Privy Council said that the function of the High Courts in cases referred under Section 66 is merely advisory and is confined to considering and answering the actual question referred to them. In Trustees Corporation (India) Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1930) A.I.R. 1930 P.C. 151 their Lordships said that the High Court will in future cases be well advised to require before they seem to entertain any question under Section 66 of the Income-tax Act that the preliminary requirements of the section are strictly complied with . I am therefore of the opinion that this Court cannot go behind the finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
