The guardian of a minor admitted to the benefits of partnership is not required to sign the partnership deed for the purpose of registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

( 1 ) AT the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Under section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in refusing to grant registration to the assessee-firm on the ground that the guardian of the minor admitted to the benefits of partnership did not sign the deed of partnership dated 15/04/1971 ?"

( 2 ) THE assessee was a firm constituted under an instrument of partnership dated 15/04/1971. It consisted of two majors and three minors who were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. One of the minors attained majority on 23/10/1973, just two days before the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1974-75 came to an end. The firm applied for continuation of registration in Form No. 1 2/06/1974, and that application was signed only by the two major partners. The Income-tax Officer found that the application was defective inasmuch as it was not signed by all the major partners on the date of the application. He also further found that the consent of the guardian in respect of the other minors admitted to the benefits of the partnership was not obtained. He, therefore, called upon the firm to take immediate steps for curing the defects pointed out by him. But the firm did not respond to the notice. It appears there were some differences and misunderstandings amongst the partners. The Income-tax Officer refused to grant continuation of registration. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, on appeal, confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer. An additional ground was also pointed out by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner : the claim for registration as originally granted could not continue with the same terms in view of the change in the constitution of the firm and, therefore, the declaration made in Form No. 12 was defective. Reliance was placed for this view on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Addl. CIT v. Uttam Kumar Pramod Kumar [1974] 97 ITR 730. In the second appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, it was conceded that the minors did not sign the partnership deed nor had anyone acting on their behalf done so. Relying on the above decision of the Allahabad High Court, the Tribunal held that the omission to obtain the signatures of the guardians acting on behalf of the minors vitiated the partnership deed. On 22/08/1975, the firm was dissolved. It was conceded on behalf of the Department before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in a miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee, that the Income-tax Officer did not give any opportunity to the assessee to obtain the signature of the minor, Premalata, who attained majority two days before the closure of the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1974-75.

( 3 ) THE only ground, therefore, based on which the registration was refused for the assessee-firm was that the deed of partnership was not signed by the guardians of the minors who were admitted to the benefits of the partnership on 15/04/1971. Sri Ratnakar, learned counsel for the assessee, contends that there is no obligation cast under the law that the natural guardian should sign the deed of partnership on behalf of the minors. There is no provision to that effect either in the Income-tax Act or in the Rules made thereunder or in the Partnership Act. The ruling of the Allahabad high court in Addl. CIT v. Uttam Kumar Pramod Kumar [1974] 97 ITR 730, according to learned counsel, essentially turned on the question of the validity of admitting minors not only to the benefits but also to the losses of the partnership and, therefore, that ruling is not an authority for the proposition that the omission on the part of the natural guardian of the minor to sign an instrument of partnership would vitiate the registration. In support thereof, Sri Ratnakar relies on a decision of the Calcutta High Court In C