A minor cannot be admitted as a partner in a firm, but with the consent of all the partners for the time being, he may be admitted to the benefits of partnership.

The following question:, of law are referred to us under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench Calcutta:-

"(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of the partnership deed dated 25-2-1953, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding:

(a) that Sm. Tribeni Debi was a partner in a representative capacity;

(b) that the minor, Sri Gobindram Bajaj was not made full-fledged partner who had been made liable for losses also;

(c) that Sm. Tribeni Debi was not a part­ner in a dual capacity and as such the deed of partnership was not invalid;

(d) that Sm. Tribeni Debi and her minor son, Sri Gobindram Bajaj, had not been made partners jointly and that their indivi­dual snares were not required to be specifi­ed?

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee firm constituted under the deed of partner ship dated 25-2-1953 was entitled to registration and in setting aside the orders of the Commissioner under Section 33-B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922?

(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the, circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax could in law invoke jurisdic­tion under the provisions of Section 33-B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, after the aforesaid Act had been repealed by Section 287 of the Income-tax Act 1961?

2. So far as the third question is concerned, the matter is now concluded by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. Commissionei of Income-tax, West Bengal, 1967-66 ITR 680 = (AIR 1968 SC 162). It has been held by their Lordships that the Commis­sioner had jurisdiction to issue the notices under Section 33-B of the Act of 1922, in view of Section 297 (2) of the Act of 1961, and paragraph 4 of the Income-tax (Remo­val of Difficulties) Order, 1962. It has been further held that Section 297 (2) (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, includes with­in its scope a proceeding under Sec 33-B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The answer to this question, therefore, must be in the affirmative in that the Commissioner had jurisdiction under Section 33-B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to dispose of the matter even alter the repeal of the said Act by Section 297 (1) of the Income lax Act, 1961.

3. The first two questions turn on uk interpretation of the deed of partnership dated 25-2-1953. It appears that this deed was between Baijnath Bajaj referred to as the first partner of the first part, Durga dutta Bajaj referred to as the second partner of the second part, Keshardeo Bajaj referred to as the third partner of the third )art and Smt. Tribeni Debi, widow of Banarshilal Bajaj, for herself and as natural guardian of her minor son Gobindram Bajaj referred to as the fourth partner of the fourth part. Clause 4 of the partnership deed may be usefully quoted:-

"4. The each of the first partner, second partner, third partner and fourth partner ^hall be entitled to four annas share in the profits of the said partners shall similarly in like proportion be liable for losses including losses of capital, if any.' The deed was signed by the partners and Tribeni Debi, the fourth partner, signed for self and on behalf of her minor son Gobindram.

4. The simple point for consideration in this reference is whether on the terms of this partnership deed it can be safely con­cluded that the partners described therein are only four, or four plus one, viz., the minor son. If, however, on the terms of (his document it is found that the minor Gobindram Bajaj has also been included in this partnership, the deed suffers from the absence of specific share of the minor Gobindram Bajaj therein. It may then be possible to argue that the minor has been made also liable for loss as it is agreed in the document that all the partners will be liable for losses including the losses of capital, if any.

5. It may be mentioned here that