Mandyala Govindu & Co v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh

MANDYALA GOVINDU & CO. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH October 6, 1975 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER, A. C. GUPTA ANDS. MURTAZA.FAZAL ALI, JJ.] Registration of firms-Income Tax Act, 1922-Sec. 26A-Whether share of parlllers in loss to be mentioned in the Partners/zip Deed-Sec. 13 (b) of Part-ners/zip Act-In the aibsence of contract regarding share in loss-Whether to be borne equally or proportionate to profit. · The appellant assessee is a firm, having three partners and one minor admitted to the benefits of the partnership. One of the partners has 31 % share and the remaining two partners and the minor have 23 % share each in the profit of the firm but the partnership deed is silent about their shares in the losses. Clauses 9 of the partnership deed provides that the partners are bound to act a·ccording to the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act. The firm applied for registration under s. 26A of the Income Tax A:t, 1922 which was refused by the Income Tax Officer. The High Court in a reference under s. 66(1) held that unless the instrument of partnership specified the shares of the partners not only in the profits but also in the losses, the firm would not be entitled to registration under s. 26A. The High Court negatived the contention of the assessee that clause 9 of the instrument indicated how losses were to be apportioned between the partners. On appeal by special leave it was contended by the appellant : ( 1) S. 26A does not require that the instrument of partnership must specify the respective shares of the partners in the losses and it is sufficient if the proportion in whi.:h the losses are to be shared is otherwise ascertainable. (2) Assuming that s. 2iiA does require mentioning the proportion of losses in the instrument of partnership, clause 9 of the instrument read with s. 13 (b') of the Partnership Act satisfies that requirement. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : (1) A firm whether registered or unregistered is &n assessee under the Act and can do business as such. However, registration under s. 6A confers on the partners a benefit to which they would not have been entitled but for s. 26A and such a right being a creature of a statute can be claimed only in accordan:e with the statute which confers it and the per.son who seeks relief under s. 26A must bring himself strictly within its terms before he rnn claim the benefit of it. [l33D-E] Rao Bahadur Revulu Subba Rao and others v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras, (1956) 30 LT.R. 163, relied on. · (2) In the case of a registered firm the share of each partner in the profit or loss is added to or set off against, as the case may be, to the other income of the partner. Thus, the loss, if any, affects the assessment proceedings and, therefore, Income Tax Offi.cer has to know what are the respective shares of the partners in the loss before allowing the firm to be registered. [134-C-D]' ( 3) There is a conflict of opinion amongst the High Courts whether it is essential for registration under s. 26A that the shares of the partners must be specified in the partnership deed. It is not necessary to decide for the purpose of this appeal which of the conflicting views is correct because in the present case the appeal is bound to fail on any view. It is not dispu.ted and ,cannot be disputed that the Income Tax Officer before allowing the applicatfon for (1976] 2 S.C.R. 132 SUPRE1-IE COURT REPORTS registrati<Jn must be in a position to ascertain the shares of the partners in the losses even if s. 26A did not require this to be specified in the instr:un1ent of partnership. [135E-F] areata Tifarz Tvs BETA-_ WTEC MTA, AEH TEM, FTTATT (Mandyala Govindu and Co.Vs.. The Commissioner of Income-tax,Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad) (6 wagaz, 1975). (sato Ato ATLo FONT HAL, To Ato Tat wit THe HAM BAA eit) gfeena gram faq Gaz, 1922(1922 %T 11)-—amet 26-0 site 23(5)——are wmiardl a,fad & ow emetaT a, ast wrNTAT HA wT CaeS HTT ATT TUfate dae arat ® ara Fa fe afaat& acer Fanitart & feedt. wr fafateceaatsera gt—arfaatacaa feet fafatzer seta F waa A oa art 26-T® aha eaectecy F fac gware at F! fauifedt cH gt 21 united faaa5s waratt, 1959 aT|Gratedat ae at fag are 260 F aedta caediact& fayaaaaT sa aaa ae favera at feat ot aat aa ae fH'aq 1961-62 at frater are adt gati faa& ag aia,ait 2 fe dia afaratwattaveaTe | ATA,«AUST.| Raexneal, Hosaet at Fraga AIC CH MATTAT AISA TTA H|fae wierd 2 pact Fafa feat watoat, wardFA: freafafad fect 2—arcaeF 31 sfara, FeecHeaF 23 safer,|fagafra * avs* 23 2H, sfawa frat ate anitardt sreaay tfeett. aaaatet F are ® 23 F feat afer gar|||a ag wt fear gate fe “one afna ater area Satta;at aux fafafere feet % sqarx aia ae ate VAR STATfrat orem1 faeH mtg Car ave adt @ frat ag fafafeve Rear aifarg oes HeTo MTT aTTHT [rato TUT]«=—--«6 49 fron arat at fs fre mamatat sretaa aftercareHt,afe are gi, are1 anfard frat F afore eve 9 Hag ata& fe anftare sax afar waar& mqare gar Teta wettermfafrn cccsqara ® maar at arr set Ffac wag€ 1) See ATT aT ae aa oT fe oe aH aaafaaa % a daa arat H afen afaai H anfterceF fetfafatavea gi aa aw GA ure 260 F adler cirettaco% faggaat at evitaver mores 4 faalfedt sr are a aT TEae setter ar aves ax fern fs frat Have 9 Hag aha fear TTSfe anita& dra erat Sa sarfas at ordS 1 atterreattwet 7saa areas & ea fafreae at sate at 21 aterarhestHe Ge, afafratta—vaeieen& far aaet H, at fafetgeq % fear oar atat 3, atfe %, afe wre gi, WaT. aTfaferfceat ait arfat aver 23(5) yoardt wt afte & ah,afe aré zi, frataetarfedt ox sara credit & wie satagat at cfrectsa wax % fae sara aaoF raat ahaaai ve saat gat 3 fe afaai A anftardd a7 feafeatfacet Fi araat afere caeteorF faq ada HAC FTA& gd ag afefreifer wet at fea # dar afer fe aaa #antiarti & frar-frat feed ght ae are 260 F ag wafera a@& fe anftard faaa & ag fafaface fear ome fe afratfraa-fraat feed dit (Fe 4, 5, WX 7).sq areron waa & fe apfterdd at werd afafaaa &aaBT HATae aT eifaai, HUTTF feeatart fafazaraaa dt mati anitaafaferr af ara 1s(@)% arinat afd¥ auacaeae: afar wea H fay Fae TH eTamar wat & va feF arat aT acraeTay feet F ater% fac ara atacnfrme feet aha F vara A Ge aaretx afar maga Harel HT ater ar were far Bt sal ITATTTme at arat& fe arfratat at set wana[F][ ster][ AMAT][|][ et]aATaTal He AUT WTA TAT FRA A. St AST AS STILT AAT HF TTaadt Ge entrar Mt sat aeraeaeTae aT TAY | (TTT 6, 7 Htz 8) 650 Sees arora facia aferet=[1976] 3 BHoFrome, Tne RISE SR em mesaren alfa woe Be To HHT Maa [Pato eA] [1935] aro Udo WIXo 58 Aaa 25:_|Fo farazat AfgateaaTA atoAaraforayafzatze|.:|(K. Pitchaiah. ChettiarVs. Subramaniam|Chettiar);—.9[isso]16 ara 83:a| gefaraitem Tate ateTeat ST ATA(Inre.Albion Life Assurance Society).8 fafa aie afearizat : 1971 a fataa aia eM 63. 1966 ® wito Ato AST 50 A Mey Wey Toa aTATAT% are 19 Kaa, 1970 ae frig aie mee F free faremaleat wie B.aavao ao BATE WI Fo THE WTmeray Bl ae a.TAM Flo Glo Wal ATT Wao Wo AAX aaa aferarta Bae Bft ho ware atedwearat at we a.aft uo fto ATI| saravas at frig ararfacftto ato qa a fear varattaata ToT—— |fag gaa Fac se wile wea Ter Tea aaa,daca,} va aren & face ay we & fat afeeqa oadea daz,1922(faa sat cam crea fafaF ew 4faface feat wat 2) a are 66(1) & aeita Sea TAT TTfafaz farafafad ast ar saxfa’A ate were fart F gar :‘aot faaifedt frator at 1961-62 % fav aferaan faq Taz, 1922 FT art 26-0 F ala cada% faq apare FI" 9, fratfcd) us widi aeftard faaa 5 waad,1959ay fonferat ve at fag ara 260 * aia cwetecr 65200Seaee arate from afer [1976] 3 3H0 froqo ( 4) The contention that clause 9 brings in by implication s. 13 (b) of the Partnership Act and thus specifies the shares of the partners in the losses is Untenable. S. 13(b) makes the partners liable to contribute equally to the losses only when they are entitled to share equally -in the profits. In this case the shares of the partners are not equal. The case of K. Pitchiah Chettiar v. G. Suhrc1mania1n Chettiar I.L.R. 58 Mad. 25 and In re Albion Life Assurance Society, 16 Ch. Div. 83, 87, applied. (135 G-H] The law stated in these' cases in the context of section 253 (2) of the contract Act applies equally to s. 13(b) of the Partnership Act which is in identical terms. In the absence of any indica:tion to the ~ontrary, where the partners have agreed to share- the profits in certain proportions, the pre5umption is that the losses are· also to be shared in like proportions. -The other rule that where the shares in the profits are unequal the losses must be shared in the same proportions as profits in the a:bsence of an agreement as to how the losses are to he apportioned, also does not apply to this case since there is a minor admitted to the benefits of the partnership. Even if the adult partners bear the losses in proportion to their respective shares in the profits, the amount of loss in the minor's share would still remain . undistributed. Whether the partners between themselves will bear this Joss equ&Ily or to the extent of their own individual shares, is not even suggested in the instrument of partnership. There is, therefore, no meanS Of ascertaining in this case how the Jmses are to be apportioned. [136JH, 137A-Cl · CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 63 of 1971. Appeal by Special Leave from. the Judgment and Order. dated the 19th February 1970 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in R.C; No. 50 of 1966. S. T. Desai and K. Rajendra Choudhury, for the Appellant. G. C. Sharma and S. P. Nayar, for the Respondent. · The Judgment of the Courf was delivered by GUPTA, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of the High Court of Andhra· Pradesh at Hyderabad answering in the negative and in favour of the revenue the following question · referred to it under sec. 66(1) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). · "Whether the Assessee is entitled to registration under Section 26A of the Income-Tax -Act, 1922 for the assessment year 1961-62." The assessee is a firm. The instrument of partnership was exe-cuted on January 5; 1959 but the application for registration under sec. 26A remained undisposed of until the assessment for the year 1961-62 was taken up. The instrument shows that ·three persons, Mandyala Narayana, Mandyala Venkatramaiah, Mandyala Srinivasulu and a minor, Mandyala Jaganmohan who was admitted to the benefits of the partnership, held the following shares: Narayana 31 per cent, Ven-katramaiah 23 per cent, Srinivasulu 23 per cent, and minor J agan-mohan 23, per cent. Clause 2 .of the instrument which sets out the :shares of the partners add that the "profits of the . above partnership business shall be divided and enjoyed according to the shares specified :above." There is no clause in the instrument specifying the proportion • in which the three adult partners were to share the losses, if any. Hav-ing set out all the terms of agreement, the instrument cJoses with clause 9 which states : .,..., afer * fae ader ar sa aqg axfavereTTad} feat ar aar aa an fe1961-62 aT fut AIT.ea goti feaa & ae afmaater 2 feataaqfeaqai AMT AVSarea,HeaterFETT, WETAT HTT AIT WH AITCATT AOSATALTTA ST#, fat amiterd & oat # ofa feat wat at,wrftarsy #Prefefer feet aaron & 31 sfama, deena ® 03aoa, stfrarge & 23 wfreer ate aMaay Faw * 23TEIfrat % ave 2 H, feat anttard & feett & arfeat gar 2, aes fae care fe “sae ana wetter Hatz+ art er gre fafafez fait ® ATA, Tet ATT AITSat seater fear sre 1faar H ere Car ars aal & fratae fafaface fear mat a fe tee ware & dat weaag ater Gira at, afe ate ai ait eee R ast faders saaina BUF TIT faa F gat FT qe 9 statga é sit ea cHB-- “et (anftere) sae afaa aqaeii } aqare sarwretia writerafeftaqRe gageATA at art aa & far mag Fy” 3 Sh mate aT ag Ha at fe aa aR anflarefred # 7 Faq anal F afew aie F anfterdi ® feefafafece + af aa oe wt ara 26-0rat% sett ueectara % faeTe Ael ent we see aaa F fraifed A ae a atatoe celle aT quem ax feat fe faa & que 9H ag dha wat & fe anftardt& ata arfaai $a watfra at ord F1wT HH A Seq eqrary R za fafrsar at wart at 1 4. Car aét & fe feet ot at cnx wetF ant ara Car aét & fe feet ot at cnx wetF ant ara aét & fe feet ot at cnx wetF ant ara & fe feet ot at cnx wetF ant ara fe feet ot at cnx wetF ant ara ot at cnx wetF ant ara at cnx wetF ant ara cnx wetF ant ara wetF ant araF ant ara ant ara ara . aa ate are 260 a dtd ate tar afar waite Bra aT deren & cafe gaat cat Fat ge wT F aqaTe a PMom wnat & wT Ta eraat MEA HAT F AICS saat ITT 2EEaie wade TY aT Tae aT | ST TAHT BAT TI ATaat HCA A OT HTT aa foes faadl & watt ATAaifen | tfau—zra aergt Cay Fear Ta WIT WN FATT ATTHTsee, ame \ee army Hover ag mt fe amt fad #ga mq%, frat anferti a afi feiss wesfam faites sat % wave A ae got a wterat H ataae eer or aT PHA TT TAT TEE I MTT 26E LA TATE | — “og (1) anftard faad % ata atom fret oA at sit & ca wfehran ate arrEt aT afeET F WTSaang cat fret oer afafrafafa & sats aftaratSs manera fase fatafess wee ge arent afaaTe BTaaqaqt fear at aaat Z| aay(2) waaq ta afer ar aafaaat aro are wedit ateoe fear ag de ana weg site H wad dw et ae fafafte ae Cat Gia weatac 4aria fear sem dat. fafer Ft ae, WI VS TKsree sfearat art ddr Afe% fear fear areae fafea at sre 1” ‘gah Tag eA THT E— “96A.(1) Application may be made| to the Income-tax officer on behalf of any firm, constituted underaninstrument of partnership specifying the individual sharesof the partners, for registration for the purposes of thisAct and of any other enactment for the time being inforce relating to Income-t*x or super-tax. (2) The application shall be made by such person orpersons,and at suchtimes and shall containsuchparticulars and shall be in such form, and be verifiedin such manner, as may be prescribed; and it shall be asdealt with by the Income-taxOfficer in such manner asmay be prescribed.” ato AIto 163. 1( 1956) 309180 654 0 | Seaararera firete oferer, [1976] 3.-gA0 foto 63 "We (the partners) are bound to act according to the B above mentioned stipulations and aim according to the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act .... " The High Court was of the view· that unless the instrument of partnership specified the shares of the partners not only in the profits but also in the losses, the firm would not be entitled to registration under sec. 26A, ·and negatived the contention raised on behalf of the c assessee that clause 9 of the instrument indicated how losses were io be apportioned between the partners. The correctnesi; of this decision is clrnllenged by the appellant firm. It is not that a firm to be able to trade must be registered under sec. 26A. A firm, registered or unregistered, is an assess~ under the Act and can do business as such. However, registration under sec. 26A "'confers on the partners a benefit", as would appear from the provisions <Of sec. 23 (5) of the Act, "to which they would not have been entitled but for section 26A, and such a right being a creature of the statute, can be claimed only in accordance with the statute which confers it, and a per-son who seeks relief under section 26A must bring himself strictly within its terms before he can claim the benefit of it": Rao Bahadur Ravulu .Subba Rao and others v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.('') The question in this case is whether in the absence of a specific statement in the instrument as to the proportion in which the partners were to shar~ the losses, the requirement of sec. 26A can be said t-0 have been satisfied. :Sec. 26A reads : "26A. (1) Application may be made to the Income-tax Officer on behalf of any firm, constituted under an instrument· of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners, for registration for the purposes of this Act and of any other enactment for the. time being in force relating to income-tax or super-tax. (2) The application shall be made by such person or persons, and at such times and shall contain such particulars shall be in such form, and be verified in such manner, as may be prescribed; and it shall be dealt with by · the Income-taic Officer in such manner as may be prescribed." The required particulars are specified in rules 2 and 3 of the Rules framed under the Act and the form of application including the Schedule an-nexed to rule 3. Paragraph 3 of the Form requires the partners to "cer-tify that the profits (or loss if any)" of the relevant period were or will A be, as the case is, "divided or credited, as shown in Section 8 of the Schedule". In Section 8 of the Schedule are to be recorded the "parti-culars of the apportionment of the income, profits or gains (or loss) of the business, profession or vocation in the previous year between the • partners who in that previous year were entitled to share in such income, ·profits or gains (or loss)". Note (2) appended to this Schedule states -. that if any partner is entitled to share in profits but is not liable to bear a " B similar proportion of any losses, this fact should be indicated. lt is clear therefore that the application for registration which has to be made in the prescribed form must include particulars of the apportionment of the loss, if any. It does not appear to have been considered in this case whether the application for registration made by the firm conforms to li the prescribed rules; the dispute is confined to the question whether sec. f26A requires the instrument of partnership to specify the individual c shares of the partners in the profits as well as the losses of the business. 654 0 anfadWe fattest afafrr& aia fer fey ® frat 2aia3 F fafafeceF aur maar & fret fied oat atfe ¢ fam 3 # oma iver & dy 3% ag gifir 3 anitere rg sarfire at fie ganar ararefirara (av aftwheFrnt aS at) Et} aeraF ef eq ¥ . qarfeataSr fee ae & at fee omit saat wt H A ae a aT TY” bora ATT aH oe atwatay area, afer at5F aa, aa ar afwara (a aft) & ga antardats, ot oe ge at Qe ore, GR are at afiraret (atalt) at ict & seer& geraa al fataftent afafatgaart <1 ea aay & eae. fer (2) H ae afer feoatC fe afe ate mitere ait i fear ot at geet 2 fingerat & set srgure tt fear aizt & fae adh dl 2 at zaCer FT ate feat ora arfay isa: ag ere 2 fe enero* fer rae %, ot fate sea H Prot art aat & athTie TE 1, Tarot a faafieat att smfee 1 Gar wit Aart 2feoem arma Hoge are oe fare ad feat mat at fe aA ara frat war efretecn % fae ‘srdeq fase feral &.AIT @; fare ge set aw afar 2 fe a arr 260 Fme wafer ¢ fe amfterd frat H areare ¥ anit aar attraHaniaaaraarerr face fafaface AA arte atest°5. afefrermrat arr 23(5) # weetat oa atfar war 2 whfaraa & frafer ey & fare } fae fire fir fea,rfirs cfaetee seed sah ar at areca cm, oot F orat F ee cH anftere ar fear vast wet amwg feat omar @ ak gaat ga art oz, fel anit ar gaarfee omfra Aa a, frator frat oat Sa aeqare waat ter at manfer fear oat 21 ge are aT UH TTRwt @ fad ae ofeefrr fear a 2 fe “ofe frat afterWT at face afr gt at seer saat wer arr A are ae femSTSaT AT ATT 24GraeHR aac gata ite are frase | eat ware atte, afe ats at, fate artarfedt ot waa at arr 23(5) # weetat oa at 23(5) # weetat oa at # weetat oa at weetat oa at at stadt & att satan we at csediad aut F far. gana a4.oeara afaaret at ag srarar star & fe afaat A sitarat fraa-fraat feet tiga ataoe arefare agi & fHmarae wear ag afafafear wet at feat A gr wafeefe areal at ae sarfaa fear orem ferg set ae & fH arTe aT 267 F Hela crete F fae oH ge z fe wateryfaaa ® ae fafatese etary arfeu fe arfrat a antler ar faa.feat fecat f1 atiarsat ar aeat & fe ara 26-0 F tat aysmia et gt atta A ae acta at g fe art 2608 agattaa vel & fe ante faaa 4 ae fafafece gar afarfe afat F apherti arfaarfaaar feet 2 atx oar &qa ¢ afe ag wana, frat arfaat ait oat & ae aeraafafarag at atx afe ag ara faarome fe are ®t ag aifize& ait oft fara B are 9h caat gta at git et srat 21fe6. aa att at fe avs 9 FH ag fafaface far wat 2afatAF owntart ar feoafeaar fear dtm,ereqaraaa vet fearat awa)et aus F ae werwar 2 fecantare, “area antterdtafataarah srarat & aaa BreHTfay aaa galtag ere ae ¢ fH anitert afatian F Prewaa H vaaa at aha fear var 8,feat antestaq AradH atfaat vordt att adler Farsaa A sq argeyWY antterd afaferr at are 13(@) a sete feat 8 are13(@)3a were 2—|. a“anitart & dra ay afaar &gendiia ag 2 fe—.;(Bocce (@) anita sqraisa aa & aaa: da ma. emacs wrewd ales aaa A aaraa: afer wey.” fara 13(@) at facca ath se ana at qa eq attaratel mea etal oe faare HUTfeeg afe ae ara at fear aefe ga way at gramme F Tat a ars ganfa 2, at feé Fal,Sa aaa sae A fH apart st anierd alate a Section 23 (5) of the Act provides different procedures in the assess-ment of a registered firm and a firm that is unregistered. Without going into details, in the case of a registered firm the share of each partner in the firm's profits is added to his other income and he is assessed on his · total income which includes his share of the profits and the tax payable D by him is determined accordingly. · There is a proviso which lays down • that "if such share of any partner is a loss it shall be set off against his other income or carried forward and set off in accordance with the pro-. visions of section 24''. Thus, the loss, if any, affects the assessment • proceeding and therefore the Income-tax Officer has to know what are the respective shares of the partners in the losses before allowing the firm to be registered. It is not dispu~ed that the Income-tax Officer must E he in a position to ascertain how losses are to be apportioned; the que.s-tion is whether it is a condition for registration under sec. 26A that the instrument of partnership must specify the respective shares of the part-ners in the losses. According to the appellant sec. 26A has no such requirement. The appellant contends that sec. 26A does not require specification of the shares in losses in the instrument of partnership and it is sufficient if the proportion in which the losses are to be shared is F otherwise ascertainable, and that, assuming the sectton did so require, ~ clause 9 of the instrument satisfies that requirement. The contention that clause 9 specifies the respective shares of the \ partners in the lo_sses is obviously untenable. This clause says that the partners are "bound to act according to the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act"; that they are in any case, and it is not clear which • G provision of the Partnership Act indicated the proportion in which the partners were to bear the losses in this case. Counsel for the appellant refers to sec. 13 (b) of the Partnership Act in this connection. Sec. 12(b) reads: "Subject to contract between the partners- (b) the partners are entitled to share equally in the profits earned, and shall contribute equally to the losses sustained by the firm : " afaatwae H HA wpirarct HAT at, & fecal ar feat gra fates ant 13(@)adt et omar* at wre ata AS aafafraifc for ovat atfau fe anita faea afafas atATT 260 FT We ae Het 2 wa fH TaareHag waa g ||7. attardtX zt atta ag dt 3 fe afefrae aara 26% % afta cediacn ® faw ag arawes at 2 fata & water% feet antterd fare F fatafere far artaifacgat actaandaFH yer: a fatwaat waafartwat 2—um fafaraa2 Far FT ATTAT WoAMI US HAT TTA ATTHL Alaaa, HAwie gaa fafrsaaSHRTATS THT TATABT S— ARTA WANT WATS TATA: TTTmrad, THC sea| UaTer fama st ae A oe aes weeTATA AML AAA, Ta H THT Fea sara F fafrsaaal avit< & arare ot ag atat fear am @ fH ciated arawet & fae ara 26-0 4H afeatar oat aT wage HT FH fayanitafrat ¥ ara sik afaat A feer-ferrd fee eeae dat fafafaccaatafaa axa ad 1 tar adie ato SfqaTet aTaTAT A TT Aa AVATAT AT VEST FT THs2—afto cto TTUNS ART FATT MRT MTgaT, Ara’ AIXATRL WAT, HUT TATA TATAAIT AI| AT: STAT TTsa urate ua F yer fate ciated ea aiawaits & fae fats sea eraraat & cece fated watfadt st zz an faare aca ac ze fafafeaa wor ara& fe gare woraare aa aT Aa Sta 2 le ATF Teale arate Tt ata fafearwa a feet a feet aa F araqt Waryaha zt weit.sa ara ae a at faare fear& atx a at faare fear ot aaa 2 fh arrae afer terete “T(1967) 669180 do HIXo 27.)| 2(1967) 668Tg0elo Aiko 293. 3 (1966) 61 Higo eto AIXo 5.40, 4 (1969) 72 BTSo zo Alto 641. 5(1973) 88 ATR° to HIXo 332. woos mesarat mifag Tre wert To mrerTe eaaT [PATO Te] = 657 a fear aged Hae wet & gd ag afatafeat wer Ht feat Fary 260 % ag qifaa at fe anitardt faa # ag fafafeefar ane fis arfrat & frad-fnay feet ett i acterel & areeterx ag aé for 2 fe faaa a ave 9 faaat ara anitadafufaonat ara 13(@) % wfa face wea & ate Taqarefret wfrac ata % sara Fo ag afatraiter fear arar arieefsart anita 13(a@) afaat % sfanr at acaeruat aie ga aaaaiet F aat H fae F art Ft ag fara ae ae1x—amatfta aet S 1 at ae case seta ey zg fH area i3(a@) 4apfreret at afat H acaeacat afaraes fae Faeaut ait aaa war 2 wa fe & ara at acacauar fedHaier& fore amare at | se aaa B antardl F feet TaTaTaywat & | aeafanet Pratt aha F ara H sat aefiarct Ft shows waa% aval et aien ar were feat at gat STaTmT ae FT aiet Z fHatfaat at at sat wart HF ater ATE | WHo atog. uafarr F se faster HT za EH oat atl yaTe Ffaa H ar fer atog. uafarr F se faster HT za EH oat atl yaTe Ffaa H ar ferg. uafarr F se faster HT za EH oat atl yaTe Ffaa H ar fer uafarr F se faster HT za EH oat atl yaTe Ffaa H ar fer F se faster HT za EH oat atl yaTe Ffaa H ar fer se faster HT za EH oat atl yaTe Ffaa H ar fer faster HT za EH oat atl yaTe Ffaa H ar fer EH oat atl yaTe Ffaa H ar fer oat atl yaTe Ffaa H ar fer atl yaTe Ffaa H ar fer yaTe Ffaa H ar fer Ffaa H ar fer H ar fer ar fer fera!’ J A — J A — A — — dears We shall refer to sec. 13(b) in more detail when we- consider the other contention of the appellant, but assuming that this provision has any relevance to the facts of this case, which it has not, bringing in by implication sec. 13 (b) from a general statement that the partners are to act in accordance with the Partnership Act does not amount to specification of the partners' shares in the losses, and the instrumen~ of partnership, it must therefore be held, fails to comply with sec. 26A of the Act, were