9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (10) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue attracting the provisions of section 263 of the Act ?" The material facts giving rise to this reference, as set out in the statement of the case, briefly are as follows: The assessee is a partnership firm. By a deed of partnership dated 2nd January, 1972, the assessee-firm was constituted consisting of five partners and two minors, Shri Purandas and Shri Premchand, who were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The assessee-firm was granted registration under s. 185 of the Act for the first time in the assessment year 1973-74. Continuation of registration was allowed up to the assessment year 1977-78. The Commissioner noticed that as Purandas had attained majority on 3rd Febr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... genuine firm had come into existence, registration should not be denied, simply because the minor, who was admitted to the benefits of the partnership, had become a full-fledged partner on attaining majority. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Commissioner and restored that passed by the ITO. Hence, at the instance of the Department, the Tribunal has referred the aforesaid question of law to this court for its opinion. Sub-section (7) of s. 184 of the Act provides for continuation of registration for subsequent years. That provision reads as under: "184. (7) Where registration is granted to any firm for any assessment year, it shall have effect for every subsequent assessment year: Provided that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation has held as follows in Durgaprasad Rajaram Adatiya v. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 601 at p. 608 : "The mode in which the losses were to be distributed after each minor became a major is thus neither foreseen by the instrument of partnership nor can it be ascertained by applying s. 30(7)(b) or s. 13(b) of the Partnership Act. In such a situation, it is clear that when each minor became major there was a change in the shares as evidenced by the instrument of partnership within the meaning of the first proviso to s. 184(7). The facts of the instant case are similar to the facts of I.T.R. No. 637 of 1972, which was one of the references decided by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Badri Narain Kashi Prasad's case [1978] 115 ITR 858 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
