Satyanarayana Rao, J.-Under section 68(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act the Appellate Tribunal referred to this Court two questions for decision; They are:

(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee is entitled to claim registration as a firm under section 26-A of the Indian Income-tax Act on the basis of the Partnership deed, dated 21st August, 1942, and or on the deed of family arrangement dated 7lh August, 1942 and or the deed, dated 24th March, 1948.

(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 9(3) of the Act are attracted to the income from property.

We may at once point out that question 2 arises only out of the assessment and does not arise out of the order under section 26-A of the Act. The reference that was sought for was only against the order under section 26-A and not against the assessment order. Therefore question No. 2 should not have been referred by the Appellate Tribunal to this Court. The argument was therefore confined before us to question No. 1 alone. It is that question which we have to answer as arising out of the appellate order of the Tribunal.

One S. Vincent executed a will on the 4th February, 1941 and died on 22nd April, 1942, leaving behind him four sons, two daughters and a widow. Immediately after his death there were disputes regarding "the will between the members of the family and the disputes were ultimately settled by a deed of family arrangement of the 7th August, 1942. Under this arrangement it was agreed between the members that the entire properties and the businesses left by the deceased S. Vincent should be managed by the eldest son P. Vincent; and after him, on behalf of all the members of the family, by the then surviving eldest son. The managing member was given complete control over the business belonging to the members for a period of 7 years from the date of the deed. At the end of the period it was provided that the parties should scrutinise the accounts and draw a true and accurate list of all the assets and liabilities and if thereafter they did not wish to continue the business, the properties should be divided so as to give a one-sixth share to each of the four sons and the widow and a one-twelfth to each of the two daughters. Within 14 days after this deed, they entered into a deed of partnership in respect of the business. The four sons, the two daughters and the widow were treated as partners, and their shares were one-sixth each to the 4 sons and the widow and one-twelfth to each daughter. There is a provision in the partnership deed whereunder notwithstanding the death of any one of the partners the partnership should not be dissolved. At the date of the family arrangement one of the sons Danraj Vincent was a minor and was represented by the eldest son as guardian. But in the partnership deed however Danraj Vincent signed as a major. Notwithstanding the execution of the partnership deed in 1942 no attempt was made by the assessees to get the deed registered under section 26-A of the Income-tax Act. For the first time an application to register the firm was made on the 11th March, 1946, during the assessment year 1945-46. The registration of this firm as a partnership was rejected by the Income-tax authorities and also by the Appellate Tribunal and at the instance of the assessee this reference was made to this Court. During the pendency of these proceedings on the 1st November, 1947, Danraj, who had by then attained majority, released his interest in the business under a release deed and on 24th March, 1948, there was a ratification executed between the parties whereunder Danraj ratified the previous arrangements from the date of the family arrangement till the date of his relinquishment on 1st November, 1947, when he retired from the partnership. These documents which came into existence on a date subsequent to the date of the application were not and could not be taken into consideration and in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document