9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (7) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ible for registration under section 26A ? " The question relates to proceedings under section 26A for the assessment year 1959-60, the relevant previous year being S.Y. 2014 which falls between October 24, 1957, and November 11, 1958. It appears that there was a family consisting of Chhaganlal Surajmal, Walchand Surajmal and Moonalal Surajmal, all being brothers. Moonalal died prior to the relevant period leaving a son, named Ramesh, born on 26th May, 1951. On 24th October, 1957, there was a partition of the family business in money-lending. After the partition Chhaganlal Surajmal and Walchand Surajmal, the two major members, agreed to carry on the business in partnership. A document of partnership dated December 1, 1957, was executed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e aforesaid question has been referred to us for our determination. In view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shah Mohandas Sadhuram it is clear that the mere fact that the guardian of a minor has signed the document of partnership would not be of much consequence and the entire deed will have to be construed to decide the question whether the minor had been a full-fledged partner or has been merely admitted to the benefits of the partnership. From that point of view certain recitals as well as the operative part of the deed assume considerable significance. One of the recitals in the deed of partnership dated December 1, 1957, runs thus : " AND WHEREAS after so commencing to carry on business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the minor (party of the third part) admitted to the benefits of the partnership. In view of the aforesaid recital and the aforesaid provisions, which are to be found in the operative part of the documents, it is more than clear that the minor was merely admitted to the benefits of the partnership and was not made a full-fledged partner. The mere fact, therefore, that the document was signed or executed by the minor's natural guardian and mother cannot run counter to the true and proper effect of the recital and the operative part. In this view of the matter, in our view, the registration was properly granted. The question is, therfore, answered in the affirmative. There will be no order as to costs. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
