Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. Vs. Messrs. Munna Lal Gupta, Kanpur. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Miscellaneous Case No. 93 of 1960
Reported in[1962]46ITR362(All)
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
RespondentMessrs. Munna Lal Gupta, Kanpur.
Excerpt:
- - such a partnership was clearly void under section 30 of the indian partnership act and consequently it could not be registered under section 26a of the income-tax act......by the tribunal shows that in the partnership which was constituted by an instrument of partnership three persons purported to enter into a partnership. these three were ganga narain and his two brothers, rajendra prasad and shesh narain. in addition, certain minors were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. it, however, appears that even out of the three person who constituted the partnership two, rajendra prasad and shesh narain, were minors. at the time when this deed of partnership was executed, therefore, only one out of the three executants of the deed of partnership was a major. such a partnership was clearly void under section 30 of the indian partnership act and consequently it could not be registered under section 26a of the income-tax act. this view of ours.....
Judgment:

The question referred for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is :

'Whether on the facts of the case, the firm was entitled to registration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1956-57 ?'

The statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal shows that in the partnership which was constituted by an instrument of partnership three persons purported to enter into a partnership. These three were Ganga Narain and his two brothers, Rajendra Prasad and Shesh Narain. In addition, certain minors were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. It, however, appears that even out of the three person who constituted the partnership two, Rajendra Prasad and Shesh Narain, were minors. At the time when this deed of partnership was executed, therefore, only one out of the three executants of the deed of partnership was a major. Such a partnership was clearly void under section 30 of the Indian partnership Act and consequently it could not be registered under section 26A of the Income-tax Act. This view of ours follows the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dwarkadas Khetan & Co. As a result the question referred to us is answered in the negative. The department will be entitled to the costs of this reference from the assessee which we fix ar Rs. 150 representing fee of learned counsel for the department.

Question answered in the negative.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //