Sri Ramamohan Motor Service v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hyderabad

UA Figs let alas aaTe ATIRT ATA, STATS (Ram Mohan Motor Service Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabed)(11 488, 1973) (Flo Ho To FAT AN Tao Arto Ora) gfeeaa gran aq Taz, 1922 (1922 Bt 11)—art 26-%—antiertSA—aN 26-5 Bude Tae wea F wee watered antewiafaa Fada es ak a wredig <faetiern afafaen S ofantatt faag gt cfsecies Gent craig cofera a aatertt Fa oecafes qaaes —aTTiat afafran Ft are 30% wal weSATA aT HT Ss water ay aces Shae arattertl ar sfieardar fewages aaaT wt agaia & ara a weere git fier gif awast Ty at atere vet it —ag vfkads ataet ate fae fleaaa & saw Fare feqraa ake wlesas ogenca Har iemarae afiardl a fran 2 Fadia aaadt ofeaat wr sat ara au eaarataadtfrre at areHt feat at agi—artiardi fase SF aqaeil ar HE Fi wade, ate ae faferatea wy 8 gt aila feat wat A, Tineapenasfage & fry fea wz artes at falar agt ox aa— aecider F ata Fl em a wat araraaedl atiwen wi onfiiga wast wea|fratfed wa ar cfaeeiper un arfterst face % ata fear war area antar) Fort wrtiere a fart & va sagen at) seatfar oFATHATe AT TAT aad HAVER Ta TMs aT wfafafyat ari aresfate F waage wTatwa mt aed}fe ataaaarfHoadl anfrerc fear at1 arfar wiaaredia araezafirfrag,1922 #) ae26 8 asia, frator #fav, araee afarty ® araaraea feati ataatafaard a nd at vfeeacr aT Ht fagr qarmeargadt frateradh ai arar vfredecr ar adie at aataca fear)afafat el ae 33@ % ada acd wheal staat at ge, aanaad tart at att at ak aaa afiarfeat & ae a acresat fear faatica t atage afenor (atta) F aad ate ah) afreco24.8 L. D./73 a afta afea ac fi aecsaa fratfcds si water ce ag sea fe “eaama ® aqeitate ofcfeafadt a1 2ad go aot faatfedh wa afatray aiare 26mwf wetter cfreciner a aware 2”arnt66 (1) # ana oaaaraa ay faface frre Tat| Sa raratag F Sa WaT AT SUR aal A TATuae faa ® caFt feat,awa fais sata wat ceadiegeaaaararaa ® ame seta am) Th 21 adr Barat HT ZW, afafratfta—arftartt fave &fad Al fades a overqadt aadiat, argaa fafaarg ea Pat adit a as a, cfacdtaco & araza at fafrarea aeaat wat, alte sears adazti aidea fau ary a fav fafer aaa %Ala wa Taga fade Gal ad aft ate afadae we atgara tat wat s feed aggHe gta gi fe ama afaart 4, fran oF cae F aeha aad) alertal Sant HT BU, sa faaea st ATE we feqt arafe <fresiwer al Ta AeAaoifana at, dt sa teiac e oearadl saree at ay oonfaee sattaretat| fafese farota rararaa at frog eqrarfiafa %o wae ame a feararattaata ers— q ad reas sium dt fats mae a sa aa aftea dargat 81 ag we ta wate—| “armed & qeat aarafefeafaat at gat ec gar fraifed) wt:afafaaa ah art 26m % ata cfeectacr ay ewertBR ”2. fra at1956-57 & Tar1958-59Baay F arediaamet afafran,1922(sfisaygewa daa tae,1922)(fra saasat Taq ‘afafran wer qar2) at arr vem® aha cH aaaSadar areroaranz afer & ara?omegafear mar1aaaafaaray @ fark ad1956-57 aad araza eatareae frat atkTUG30-6-1960 Fat sat arég B agvfwedrecm daeae farafraal att at 7S fy gd ® ara-arg vat aq frat agt& dagH tfriwer % adel(feeqaer) at earra 2 db) feed araacarret t afaftar etare 33a % ata avd afeatt ar sat aedee, ATH | BMT Ta AMT aa saat ota ay ate faatfeay ar waegit * ate araae afeardara fee ae aaal water wt fear|~—*= fratiedt t gq aiaat Fo araaxtada afsecn ® arad attr ax 1afrret a gaat atta arf ae ahi acrrarq fratfed sy dear at a4fafase fafa set ar fata arer 66(1) ® ada Bea earataaHe oeHAT TAT Sat yaa, A sa sea ar sat ‘Aa’AF aa corer frara* Ga 4 feati aa: fate eqrae aac Tt att a Te FI Section: CONCLUSION SRI RAMAMOHAN MOTOR SERVICE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HYDERABAD April 11, 1973 [K. S. JIEGDE AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] Income-tax Act 1922, s. 26A-Registration of firm-Minor sholWl ps partner in pcirtnership deed-Not shown as having been admitted only to bene{itl of partnership-Applications for registration and ronewal of regi&tmtion ·~f firm not mentionjng letter 'P' in colrunn 6--Partnership is void under s, 30 of Partners/tip Act 1932-Application under S. 26A not complying Income-tax Rules-Registration rightly re/used. The appellant firm according to j!s partnership deed was constituted c of fh"e partners one of whom was a minor represented by his father. One The appellant firm according to j!s partnership deed was constituted c of fh"e partners one of whom was a minor represented by his father. One of the terms in the partnership deed was that the profit and loss of the busi-ness would be divided and bor:ne between the partners in equal shares. The appellant firm made an application under s.26A of the Income-tax Act 1922 for the registration of the firm for the year 1956-57 on 30..6-1955. the last day for making the application. Along with the application as required by the rules, a copy of the partnership deed was submitted. On D October 8, 1955 an application was made to the Registrar of firms for registration of the firm under the Partnership Act. The Registrar raised an objection to the effect that the partnership was invalid uncler ~.30 of the Partnership Act as one of the partners was a minor. On December 18, 1955 the four adult partners informed the Registrar by letter that the minor was admitted to the tteJ>Cfils of the partnership and was not liable to share losses. The Registrar thereafter registered the firm. The Income-tax Officer registered the firm for the assessment year 195 6-57 and E renewed its registration for subsequent years up to 1961-62. But the Commissioner of Income-tax i;n exercise of his power under S. 33B of the act set aside the orders made by the Incme-tax Officer. The Tribunal and the High Court decided in favour of the Revenue. In appeal to this Court by special leave. HELD : (i) . The assessee firm was not registered under the Indian Partnership Act before the application uncler s.26A of the Act was made, F nor was the partnership deed registered under the Indian Registration Ac1. The partnership deed submitted along with the application for registration disclosed that the partnership constituted under that deed was void in view of s. 30 of the Partnership Act as o,ne of the five partnership was a minor. Hence the application made for registration was an invalid-application. The subsequent alteration of one of the terms of the partition deed, even if validily made, could not validate the application made because the alteration in q_ues~on was Il!ade long after the ti':"e prescribed for making the G appllcation had exp1re<l and there was nothmg to show that the Income-tax Officer had condoned the delay in exercise of his power under the proviso to Rule 2. If the original order of registration was unauthorised, the sub-sequent renewals of the registration must also be held to be unauthorised. [963 FJ (ii) It was found by the Tribunal that both in the application made for registration of the firm as well as in the applications made for renewal H of registration ln column 6 of the formletter 'P' was not mentioned. On the other hand the 111inor's share was shown as I/5th which means his share both in the profits as well as in the loss. The record did not show whether 959 . 3. fratfedtgat arta5-2-1955 % anfert fade(Sie arsareqcfart)FF ata afer at wh ot; fad va fata | sae gar 2fe me BA1 wrad, 1955 at afeaa F adi ae GA (1) ato ae-areata, (2)ato atfrat area,(3) ato adtawdat,(4) dtogarevay, dat(5)atowWamteraa ame attanftania faa azafsage ati afar uniter sagen ary anita fata |ae yee gar 2fe aq at case at att gant sfafafaca searfrar dbo aerateHC tal ati arttantt faga ar un faaaa ae 2 fe rearsFR aa aarafa ar fauna arttert # dqaart aat A fear sea ate vet8 agar a aagra ath aa aft set1frater we1956-57ard26m % adta avdea, ard@30-6-1955 at fearwar arat araaa ae at afea athe dt) ga ade & ara, sta fe faaat ZFafd 3, anfard faa at un vfs at areexafsartt Sora ao ae ety4. TVa18 WTA,1955 FT BA F anitaa Gat H eorerea oF al thread eat ar ardaa feati atte13 fearat, losse “4g, aq 9a ar Caer a ae at Caedhacn wet Fada A ea aaqq arf ay fe arttart, arthartt afafaga at arc 30% adta afataara=, qfwp antewagen21 va yaay atfta ® ave are aaparent 4 ateig feqraz,1955 $ aga ca q<faesrxeat 7fact & fe “(saa) ganeme FY ae arfert a agafe a, ariesmat aT afaerty gen feat ovat 1 wa By arf 4 gant ate alaeaval ahiwaca ae aadi sents fatesahge udefaeqae aaa st datas wa g ak Hegre sah F cere Feag adeq aq fogow HywhaF aegalHcreer 419 mre,1956 Si irairedt wa st <feedipgacfaot, ga ava wt atevat aét 2 f vaca a) ai x amex afsertare at weaa wel He Tie at al wa Stas5. 4aT fe Sat eT ST Bar z, ataet amas A aay afaarta1 Wau telat aver st feat) ag aa fame axagar faaragantral, area @ at(ad fat)aga @1 vat ag eater agt avitfeani & vieegre st act ae ca f antefade ar fafaaranetax feat 2) eae afeftar vat ag aa uaz fear feanfiert fade% feat g) fran sagen & fed ox ufana sara stad art 21ag urilert fafarry ad art at aadti atta a oe, afeewstgq freeut al aay ter far we aad wear ati ganafafeear afa-au 4 ag ufafaaiica fear fe <fneheem ast adtaca & ardedt afafa at adarat at cea adi fear wat ar) aa:2 ardea afafanrd41sa may4amfaereptfigWFafsawy#8=afafaraz sy gfe at, fe ate S aaare ag aritartt fafaarar at21 satae ay Ait ale coe aval fer fe <faedlezasar adreco ® faa favm aaawagroafefearafo atseyot gard ae wa 2 ifUaTHUT Gal waleR # areal a fafa at aderal ar cat sel fearTay at at aah aweges, garfeafa, cseftaea at adtaen daz adtfeat ST Wat Atlgaat eae F wad gu, sad ea gay at att WETarea ataaatfe agen unfremtara arteisfearax,1955ar, Rt & Userat fadavovaAF qfemaeqed arard fafaaraat we aat mat 6. aa 26%HF falea fear aa: 2 fe—s(1) avfert fate & adtaafea feet we at att F anhentease adh at wade ea gu sa afafaae F sai afar Hast FAS BI HTK F— “(1) Application may be made to the Income-tax Officer onbehalf of the any firm, constituted under aq instrument of partnership “ ey e atta & fou <fretteer & fan ardaa areae afar atfearcar asta asa at afaat a dag a acraa sau feat aca afafratata (2) ardeq Ga cafer atcafeaatarc aardd anatafeararaat site sad dat fafafeat shit aar ae da yeq A ah aarGat Of A wear at att fa fafer at we al alc vas daaq maar afeart ara araréod Ofa A at ood adh fefateat at” 7. at 59 st gaara(5)aefafed wet & fa—- sq ara & adie gare aw faae asa 8sarioe feo areaat vat a Te Vast yara val sare at aml fe F ea afafraa& ad afafrafa fea mm ets” 3. afafrat & aeita facfaa fara2 seat@ fa— ttantert & aes oat at fafatese et areanfraretfata & eta afsa ate va, avrect afafian,1922 (fad gafront AH gas qeaa ‘afafray| =ower wats) BT are 26" H T-adi a dia ea fafoa aaa aay, ver fora at fafafezat a,araat afar & ora, Utedted aa gaat specifying the individual shares of the partners for registration, forthe purposes of this Act andof any other enactment for the timebeing inforce, 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 and shall bein such form, and beverified in such manner, as may be prescribed;and it shall be dealt with bythe Income-taxOfficer in such manneras maybe prescribed.” tho Income-tax Officer was informed 9f the letter written to the Registrar of Firms on 18-12-1955 and if so on what date he was informed about it. From the above facts it was clear that the applications made by the part-ners of the firm did not comply with the requi_rements of the rules. H<ll!Ce those applications muld not be considered as valid applications. [9()4 Fl (iil) Since the applications for registration and renewal/ didl not conform to the requirements of the Jaw the! registration and the renewals could not have been aranted. (iv) Seclion 185(2) of the 1961 Act is not retrospective in opeation oor were the requirements of that section complied with, The plea that substantial compliance with the rules is sufficient stands negatived by the decisions of this Court, [9650] [9650] Rao Baliad11r Ray11/11 S11bba Rao and Ors, v. Commlssiontr of Income-rax, Madras, 30 J.T.R. 163 at 172, N. T. Patel & Co. v. Commisslontr of lncomt•tax, Madras, 42 J.T.R. 224 and Khan}an Lal Sewak Ram y, Commissioner of Inco111e-Tax,.U.P .. 83 l.T.R. 175, referred to. CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 4 71 to 476 of 1970. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 29, 1969 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Referred Case No. 34 of 1965. M. C. Chagla, K. Mangachary,, A. K. Verma, J, B. Dada· chanji 0. C. Mafhur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant. B. B. Ahuja, S. P. Nayar and R. N. Sachthey, for the respon-dent. " The Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEGDE J. These are connected appeals. A common quesl!ion 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. 2GA of the Act." 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 1961-62, relevant accounting years being calendar years 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960 were made b!y the appellant to the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Officer accepted '!he 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 oi. the registration in respect of other assessment years. But the Com-missioner of Income-tax in exercise of his powers under s. 33-B of the A_ct 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 the matter in appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected its appeal. Thereafter the question of law set out earlier was A referred to the High Court under s. 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. +“Rules mide under this section shall be published in the offi-cial Gazette and shall thereupon have effect as ifenacted in thisAct.” +t“‘Any firm constituted underaninstrumentof partnershipspecifying the individual shares of the partners may, under the pro.visions of section 26-A of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922(here-inafter in these rules referred to as the Act), register with the Income-tax Officer, the particulars contained in the said instrument on ap-plication made in this behalf, Gar aaar aa arated (at cazen a Mt) aree ar fasted GA aTamr A aa omferat(oY sagen a at)ater,owt fraza & ataget we & afters we at ate GA arfare 4, Tt aaa gz, fatessfafafia arat aeatafea fot arom ate31ATH,1953 THFfeat vil fratcor ad t@ fraF cat aria at aaTa gt aa, TT FTfaaten tt afenfat & 28 %Htatl, 1953 F Ts AMT Bas Loraa feet at fratea ag ta— |(%) wage aredta anitardt sfafray, 1932 (19327 9).‘[afusaa oréacfirr daz, 1932 (1932 aT 9)] % aeita cfret-wa wal & or a aMlard fata, area wsediacn afar,1908(1908 a16) * afta efaedtad ael 2 atc cfredt-ae at arden afafran & ata cgett are fear at wT gs :-(i) afe od va qd ad a afer ge fi at oa aferat#6WT FH HaleF areata GT H sas al aaa |get, at a ot at qdaifat sam arac fear sive aT, (ii) fat rer car a, a ae at Taft B Feet feat TTTAT; (@) oa fe oat arcia anftard afaftar,1932 (1932at9) & atta efeettad & ar anfterd fata a <feediawareata tsedtacy afafray,1908 (1908 a16) % weldfrat wat a, ca GAH od ay at aries Hee feat area, ate Such application shall be signed by all the partners (not beingminors) personally, or in the case of a dissolved firm by all persons(not being minors) who were partners in the firm immediately beforedissolution and by the legal representative of any such partnerwhois deceased, and shall, for any year of assessment upto and includingthe assessment for the year ending on the 3lst day of March, 1953, Abe made betore the 28th February, 1953 and for any year of assess-ment subsequentthereto,be made—- (a) Where the firm is notregistered under the IndianPartnership Act, 1932 (IX of 1932), or where the deed of partner-ship is notregistered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908(XVI of 1908), and the application for registration is being madefor the first timeunder the Act :— .(i) within a period of six monthsoftheconstitutionof the firm or before the end of thepreviousyearof thefirm, whicheveris earlier, if the firmwasconstitutedin *that previousyear,ee (ii) before the end of the previous year in any other case; (b) Where the firmis registered under the Indian Partner-ship Act, 1932 (IX of 1932), or wherethe deed of partnershipis registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of1908), before the end of the previous year of the firm; and —mery (1) wa atdaa, fedt ad ug for 5% asta<fredt-ay h adrpey F fou2, qa va AW THHF 304fea Fved fear sTUAT: The assessee finn was constituted under a deed of partnership B dated 5-2-1955; but the deed shows that the finn came into existence on January l, 1955. The firm consisted of five partners namely (1) B. Satyanarayanamurti; (2) B. Bapaiah Pantulu; (3) B. Seetaramaiah; ( 4) B. Subrahmanyam and (5) B. Ram-monanrao. The last one was a minor. The partnership deed shows that he was a party to the same, being represented by his father, c B. Satyanarayanamurty. One of the terms of the partn\)rship 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 tor the assessment year 1956-57 was made on 30-6-1955, the last date for making the application. Alogwith that application, as required by the rules, a copy of the partner-ship deed was also sent to the Income-tax Officer, D On October 18, 1955, an application was made by the partners of the firm to the Registrar of Firms to register the finn. The Registrar, by his letter dated December 13, 195_5, 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 E was a minor. After the receipt of tha!t 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 partner-ship 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 Finns as directed." After the receipt of that F letter, the Registrar of Firms registered the assessee finn, 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. As mentioned earlier, the Commissioner of Income-tax, set G 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 '!hat the letter sent to the Registrar of Firms validated the partnership deed. He further opined that several of the tenns in the pavtnership deed adversely affected the minor and therefore the partnership cannot be held to be valid. H 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 confonn to the require-ments oi the law and consequently they were invalid applications. The High Court in an elaborate judgment affirmed the decision of the Tribunal that the partnership was not valid in law. It did not ad~ss !tself to the question wh~er the aPPlications made for registration and renewal were otherwise invalid. We are of opinion that the applications for registration and renewal did not conform to the requirements of the law and consequently the registration or the renewals as the cP$e may be could not have been granted. In that view we have not thought it necessary to go into the question whether the partnership was validated as a result of the letter written by he adult partners to the Registrar of Firms on 18-12-1955. · Section 26A prescribes : "(1) Application may be made to the Income-tax Officer on beha1f 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 and shall be in such form, and be verified m such manner, as may be prescribed; and it shall be dealt with by the Income-tax Officer in such manner as may be prescribed." red af amex afaart)at qatar etwat@ fe wa cataarea & ae araaa, fafafese aaa % aay ae} J aaHtzg at azau faaa a fafafess qag ayar ® aaa % oearq fau aw araaa awgen et aa9. afafaon ay art ase Fadia avazafae rt B cgaya aiade wniiert afafaa & asia feat) ot at vfaedtexcaaie aard cade afsied & ade anierd fade at cfediser getatwaedlerq=ader&arafewae ametfateFagqa wat fe va fata & ata afea anfierd, apie afefad a arc30 mT eatA tad au, wag, ei ae A 8 we ania qaaeR aT)wavy ufsediawr & fwfear agaaaqoafafiargadeatantent faa & fat fi fader a qeaaad? adit, m2 ag fafearaey a dwta atowea,areaatfafasraadtaaraayadits smidadiet,aren feo om & fav fafea ana da weot aga faciaat we oH ak afaae ox ate aatel adh 2fra 8meseegat& fe aman afaart 4, fray2 8Ran F alaact uferat at sataedgu,va fada ai am axfegrar)afeureclaen aT Wa ae antfasa a, a sa taeda F qariaqaracy at AY agrfana sacar stir10. fay3 HY agar ag & fe fasta; va fagsa ada areasai megaqme aawelA et TT Fae ater va frae H a weeiea aa aqag * 21 ara SET (at FR aft) wary# afagty6Hoot am at yete (sfteq, aat-wg gate gu) at 1” sager under the Rule 5 for any year, before the 30th day of June ofthat year:(c) where the application is for renewalofregistration Provided that the Income-taxOfficer may entertainan ap-plication made after the expiry of the time limit specified in this ruleif he is satisfied that the firm was prevented by sufficient cause frommaking the application within the specified time.” *<To mention the share in the balance of profits (or loss) (annasand pies in the rupee)”’. & fer 2a ag afaafad gfe aie ag artes ara, a ae qa argrat @ freq val aaqgia a gifs ar aga wet at frmiar< adi 3, dt agqq eH G6 Hat ae HR amt aa Bare d)” fa@wr, sae fatarat arfam 1” 11. faq 4(1) Ba wate) aa ae Ufa fafa wzaré faad ariaan faah atary, aaer afaard amt warwama & amar gi ga faaamr otiaaa (2) azar g fe afe safaam (i) F afma wd gad adt gf 2,A araat afaardt ***“anierd face ar saat saifne of A maar weramet Taare wet ge fafaa area afta st ale cH onee A va ofaaiaeat el eat” 12. faa Gag wea fated arat %, feat aden aiqea fagrarara|Ba TET HT eM oaat gs star fe faaa 3% ala falga yea ar cada 6|Sa THTT Va TET HS Tara fey 2 A edt weal He feat fH fara 3Sad ait wet aT fegg 2 31 afewenga freed at agar fe ot Aadie % faz fat ae aaa agi uaedtaor % adtact & far faeI aad, Dat F, TETa cary 6 Hawi wae “WT” afza azar) sathfardd wages ST ata, 1/5 afad ar faa ary ea gifa Dal F saatag afagaftHart fH wget Fer al Bar z, sae gam yeaa afiae Bea aa atgar adt aaa ¢ fe araaz afaard a va va aefaar di ar adi, WD18-10-1955 Hl HAL &cfaeant wi faa vat m att afe at a vatafaar 3& fea ame a a 7g 13, BI far we aeahaageres fe wa ® anftarct aver fac aaraaat 4,faaat at atest arqveatr adt fear war a, zafac gaafafantea araaa adt anat wr waar 2| (*) A earataa14. Ut Agate Hat a aaa Gea faseTT AT ogee BS ey wea ge, TAT eararfsafaTAHT BIQaa AZTAaaccearAzarFT FET AT— “Sa THY, ale Me GA feeding tal aa suse yaaafax gare adt wedt ate gaa are gaifaa ara i dae H ated 3%aaret fafa sarqert ae amar ara2s fe F ara aar-aert anherd **ifany partner is entitled to share in profits but is not liableto bear a similar proportion of any losses, this fact should be indicatedby putting against his share in column6 the letter “P”, ****shall pass an order in writing refusing to recognisetheinstrument of partnership, or the certified copy thereof, and furnisha copy,of such order to the applicants.” (*) 80 H.So Zio Hiro 163 (Jo172). amen Sub-s. (5) of s. 59 prescribes that: "Rules made under this section shall b~ published in the Official Gazette and shall 1hereupon have effect as if enacted in this Act." Rule 2 framed under the Act says that : "Any firm constituted under an Instrument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners may, under th~ provisions of section 26-A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter in these rules referred to as. the Act), register with the Income-tax Officer, the particulars contained in the said Instru-ment on application made in this behalf. February, 1953, and for any year of assessment subse· quent therto, be made :- (a) where the firm is not registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (IX of 1932), or where the deed of partnership is not re~istcred under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908), and the application for registration is being made for the first time under the Act.- ( i) within a period of six months of the constitution of the firm or before the end of the 'previous year' of the firm whichever is earlier, if ihe firm was constituted in that previous year, (b) where the firm is registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (IX of 1932), or where the deed of partnership is registered under ithe Indian Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908), before the end of the previous year of the firin; and (c) where the application is or renewal of registr-ation under Rule 6 for any year, before the 30th day <>f June of that year : The a'sessee firm was not registered under the Indian Partner-ship Act before the application under s. 26A of the Act was lllllde nor was the partnership deed registered under the Indian Registration Act. The Partnership deed submitted along with the application for registration disclosed that the partnership constituted under that deed was void in view of s. 30 of the Partnership Act as one of the five partners was a minor. Hence the application made for registration was an invalid applicatioo. The subsequent alteration of one o~ the terms of the partition deed, even if validly made, cannot validate the application made because the alteration in question was made long after the time prescribed for making the application had expired and there is nothing on record to show that the Income-tax ·officer had con-doned the delay in exercise of his power under the proviso to Rule 2. If the original order of registration was unauthorised, the subsequent renewals of that registration must also be held to be· unauthorised. 964