Judgment

HEGDE, J.: - These are connected appeals. A common question of law arises in these appeals. That question is :

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee firm is entitled to registration under S. 26A of the Act."

2. Application under S. 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) relating to assessment years 1956-57 to 1961-1962, relevant accounting years being calendar years l955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960 were made by the appellant to the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Officer accepted the application relating to the assessment year 1956-57 and granted the registration asked for, by his order dated 30-6-1960. At the same time he granted renewals of the registration in respect of other assessment years. But the Commissioner of Income-tax in exercise of his powers under Section 33-B of the Act called for and examined the papers of the case and after hearing the assessee set aside the orders made by the Income-tax Officer. The assessee took up {he matter in appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected its appeal. Thereafter the question of law set out earlier was referred to the High Court under Section 66 (1) at the instance of the assessee. The High Court answered that question in the negative, and in favour of the Revenue. Hence these appeals by special leave.

3. The assessee firm was constituted under a deed of partnership dated 5-2-1955, but the deed shows that the firm came into existence on January 1, 1955. The firm consisted of five partners namely (1) B. Satyanarayanamurty; (2) B. Bapaiah Pantulu (3) B. Seetaramaiah; (4) B. Subrahmanyam and (5) B. Rammohanrao. The last one was a minor. The partnership deed shows that he was a party to the same, being represented by his father, B. Satyanarayanamurty. One of the terms of the partnership deed is that the profit and loss of a business should be divided and borne between the partners in equal shares. The application under S. 26A for the assessment year 1956-57 was made on 30-6-1955, the last date for making the application. Along with that application, as required by the rules, a copy of the partnership deed was also sent to the Income-tax Officer.

4. On October 18, 1955, an application was made by the partners of the firm to the Registrar of Firms to register the firm. The Registrar, by his letter dated 13-12-1955, objected to the registration of the firm on the ground that the partnership was invalid under S. 30 of the Partnership Act, as one of the partners was a minor. After the receipt of that letter, the four adult partners by their letter dated December 18. 1955 informed the Registrar that "the minor is admitted to the benefits of the partnership with the consent of all the partners. He has nothing to do with the loss of the firm. We therefore, agree to record our consent and amend the application accordingly and send the same to the Registrar of Firms as directed." After the receipt of that letter, the Registrar of Firms registered the assessee firm, on January 10, 1956. It is not known whether a copy of that letter had been sent to the Income-tax Officer and if so when it was sent.

5. As mentioned earlier, the Commissioner of Income-tax, set aside the registration granted by the Income-tax Officer. He came to the conclusion that the partnership in question was ab initio void. He rejected the contention that the letter sent to the Registrar of Firms validated the partnership deed. He further opined that several of the terms in the partnership deed adversely affected the minor and therefore, the partnership cannot be held to be valid. On appeal, the Tribunal upheld the conclusions reached by the Commissioner. In addition, it held that the applications for registration as well as for renewal did not conform to the requirements of the law and consequently they were invalid applications. The High Court in an elaborate Judgment affirmed the decision of the Tribunal tha