KONDAIAH, J.

(1) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench; under Section 66 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, (hereinafter called the Act) referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court. " (i) Whether on a proper construction of sec. 297 and 298 of the Income tax Act, 1961, and of the Income Tax Removal of difficulties order (No. 2) 1962, the Commissioner of Income Tax was entitled to revise under Section 33b of the Income-tax Act, 1922. after 1-4-1962, an order granting registration passed by the Income tax Officer before 1-4-1962 and (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of the instrument dated 24-2-1955 and 29-3-1955, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no valid firm had come into existence, and as such the assessee was not entitled to registration under Sec. 26-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, for the Assessment year 1956-57".

(2) SRI Ramacbandra Ginning and Oil Mills, Gollaprolu (herein after referred to as the assessee) was a firm which claimed registration under Section 26 A of the Act on the strength of a partnership deed executed on February, 24, 1955 a deed of rectification dated March, 29, 1955 (Annexure A and C to the statement of the case) for the assessment year 1955-56 as the firm was purported to have been formed on April, 1, 1954, The Income-tax officer, kakinada granted registration to the assessee, firm by his order dated June 29, 1956 which was allowed to become final.

(3) THEREAFTER the application for renewal of the registration of the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1956-57 corresponding with the accounting year ending with March, 31, 1956, was granted by him by his order dated March. 18, 1961. The Commissioner of income-Taken a consideration of clause 11 of the Partnership deed, was of the opinion that the "minors described as partner Nos. 9 and 16 wore made liable for both profits and losses, thereby disentitling the firm for the grant of registration under Sec. 26-A of the Act. As the original order of registration had been passed earlier than two years, the Commissioner could not revise that order. But he issued a notice under Sec. 33-B of the Act on Feb. 16, 1963, which was served on the assessee on Feb. 21, 1963. calling upon the assessee to show cause why the renewal of registration granted on march, 18, 1961 should not be set aside as, in his opinion, it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Rejecting the objections of the assessee that the firm was validly constituted under the deed of partnership read with the rectification deed and that the minors were admitted only for benefits, "though the assessee had modified the application made to the Registrar of Firms on march, 30, 1955 for registration under the Indian Partnership Act specifically mentioning that the minors were admitted only for been fits, the Commissioner revised the order of the Income-tax Officer granting renewal of registration for the assessment year 1956-57 and directed him to pass consequential orders thereon. On appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, it was found that the deed of rectification was sent by the assessee to the Income-Tax officer on march, 30, 1955, relying, upon the certificate of posting produced by the assessee. However, the Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner that the rectification deed did not improve the case of the assessee" as the partners 9 and 16. who were minors, were considered to be full partners in the firm and the losses were to be borne by the respective guardians. The Tribunal reliving upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST bengal V. KHETAN AND Co. , (1) and that of the Bombay High court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX BOMBAY SOUTH v. MD. KHALID FAQUIH and CO. , (2) held that a guardian cannot purport to enter into a partnership on behalf of a minor, and confirmed the order of the Commissioner, The objections of the assesee that the Commissioner is not empowered to exercise his powers under Section 33-B of the Act which was repealed by the Income tax Act, 1961 subsequent to 1-4-1962, also did not find favour with the Tribunal At the instance of the assessee, the afore said two questions have been referred for the opinion of this court. The question No. 1 has to be answered in favour of the Department in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in KALAWATI devi HARLALKA V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- WEST bengal AND OTHERS (3) where in it was held that the expression "proceedings for the assessment" in Section 297 (2) (a)of the Income tax Act, 1961, had a comprehensive meaning and included the whole procedure for ascertaining and imposing liability upon the taxpayers. In the case Sikri, J who spoke for the Court, ruled.

(4) IT seems to us that section 297 is meant to provide as far as possible for all contingencies which may arise out of the repeal of the 1922 Act, It deals with pending appeals, revisions, etc. , It deals with non-complete assessment pending at the commens cement of the 1961 Act, and assessments to be made after the commencement of the 1961 Act, as a result of returns of income filed after the commencement of the 1961 Act x, x. x. x. x (x. It is hardly believable in this context that Parliament did not think of appeals and revisions in respect of assessment orders already made op which it had authorised to be made under clause (a) of Section 297 (2)x. x. x. In our view, section 6 of the General Clause Act would not apply because section 297 (2) evidences an intention to the contrary. (at page 691) If section 6 of the General Clauses Act is out of the way, there is no doubt that Parliament should not be credited with the intention of not providing for appeals and revisions etc. , against the assessment orders made under the 1922 act. In this context, we must give the expression "proceedings for the assessment of that person" in clause (a) of Section 297 (2) a very comprehensive meaning.

(5) AT any rate, if the Income-tax (Removal of difficulties)Order, 1962, is valid, paragraph 4 of the said order clearly covers the present case and would give jurisdiction to the Commissioner to issue the impugned notice. Hence, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative and in favour of the Department.

(6) WE shall now turn to the second question.

(7) IT is argued by Sri Venkata Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee, that the two minors have been admitted only to the benefits of partnership and the assessee has complied with all the requisite conditions entitling the firm for registration under Section 26-A of the Act and the decision of the Tribunal is erroneous and illegal.

(8) SRI Ananta Babu, the learned Counsel for the revenue, resisted the claim of the assessee on the following grounds. (1) that clause 11 which is the operative one in the deed of partnership is not modified suitably and it controls the other clauses which have to be read subject to this clause. (2) that clause 11 when read with other clauses and the preamble showing sixteen partners as constituting the firm, would show that the minors were made full "partners liable to bear losses also; and (3) that the guardians representing the minors agreeing to contribute the share capital and bear losses for and on behalf of the minors would make the partnership invalid.

(9) THE answer to the second question partly depends open the scope and application of Sections 2 (6b) and 26-A of the Act and rules 2, 3 and 4 of the Indian Income-Tax Rules 1922 made by the Central Board of Revenue by virtue of the powers conferred by section 59 of the Act, and Section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act, and partly on the construction of the material clauses of the deed of partnership and the rectification deed,

(10) SECTION 26-A which provides for registration of a firm"under the Act, reads thus ; " (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 taxi. " (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 in such manner, as may be prescribed, and it shall be dealt with by the Income-tax officer in such manner as may be prescribed".

(11) RULES 2, 3 and 4 of the Income-Tax Rules. 1922, read ;"2, Any firm constituted under an instrument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners may, under the 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 instrument on application made in this behalf. "such application shall be signed by all the partners (not being minors) personally and shall be made (a) before the income of the firm is assessed for any year, under Section 23 of the Act, or. . . . . . . ". , The application referred to in rule 2 shall be made in the form annexed to this rule and shall be accompanied by the original instrument of partnership under which the firm is constituted, together with a copy-thereof. . . . . . . . . . . . . " "form" form of application for registration of a Firm under Sec. 26a of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. . . . ,. "4, If on receipt of the application referred to in rule 3 the income-tax officer is satisfied that there is or was a firm in existence constituted as shown in the instrument of partnership and that the application has been properly made, he shall enter i n writing at the foot of the instrument or certified copy, as the case may be, a certificate in the following form, namely. . . . . . . ".

(12) SECTION 2 (6b) of the Act reads : "firm", "partner" and "partnership" have the same meanings respectively as in the Indian Partnership Act 1932 (IX of 1932). Provided that the expression "partner" includes any person who being a minor has been admitted to the benefits of partnership".

(13) SECTION 30 of the Indian Partnership Act in so, far as it is relevant for our purpose in this case, may also, be extracted here. "30 (1) A person who is a minor according to the law to which hels subject may not be 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. (2) Such minor has a right to such share of the property and of the profits of the firm as may be agreed upon and he may have access to and Inspect and copy any of the accounts of the firm. (3) x, x. x. x. (4) Such minor may not sue the partners for an account or payment of his share of the property or profits of the firm, save when severing his connection with the firm, and in such case the amount of his share shall be determined by a valuation made as far as possible in accordance with the rules contained in Section-48. X X X X. (5) At any time within six months of his attaining majority, or of his obtaining knowledge that he had been admitted to the benefits of the partnership whichever date is later, such person may give public notice that he has elected to become or that he has elected not to become a partner in the firm, and such notice shall determine his position as regards the firm. "

(14) THE registration under Section 26 A of the Act confers on the partners not only a benefit of lower rates of assessment but also there will be no tax directly charged on the income of the firm. The in come of the firm would be apportioned to the partners and their share of income would be added to their other income to make up the total income of the partners. But in the case of an unregistered firm, it would be treated as an entity and charged to tax on its total income except in cases where, in the opinion of the Income-tax officer, it would be advantageous to apportion the income and tax the partners separately. Hence, the right to register the, firm can only be claimed in accordance with the strict compliance of the terms of Sec. 26 A and the rules made thereunder by the person who seeks benefit thereunder

(15) ON a combined reading of Section 26 A of the Act and the rules made thereunder, it is manifest that it is incumbent on the income-tax Officer to register a firm if the application made by the assessee-firm furnishes the requisite particulars prescribed by the rules 2. 3 and 4 of the Indian Income-tax Rules, provided the existence of the firm as disclosed in the instrument of partnership is establishes The Income-tax officer is competent to reject the application of the firm for registration only when it is not in conformity with the rules and when the firm is proved to be a bogus one, or has no legal existence, but cot otherwise. The discretion conferred on the Income-tax authorities under Section 26 A of the Act is a judicial one and hence, the applications for registration under the Act cannot be refused on suspicion or speculation. Under Sec 2 (66)the expression "partner" includes any person who being a minor has been admitted to the benefits of partnership. Sec. 30 of the Indian partnership Act prohibits a minor from becoming a full partner though he may be admitted to the benefits of partnership with the consent of the adult partners. By Section 2 of Sec. 30 of the Indian partnership Act, a minor cannot be made liable for losses, sub-Sec. (4) of Section 30 provides that a minor can sever his connections with the firm. Sub-Section (5) of Sect 30 enables the minor to elect on attaining majority either to continue or refuse to continue as a partner in the firm. No deed of partnership which traverses beyond the scope of section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act can be regarded as valid for the purpose of registration under section 26 A of the Act.

(16) THE heart of the matter is that in order to entitle a firm for registration for the purposes of the Act, there must exist valid and genuine partnership constituted under an instrument specifying the individual shares of the the partners, and the application along with the deed signed by all the partners personally and in conformity with the rules should be sent to the Income-tax Officer within the time prescribed by the uses. One of the fundamentals Under the act is that the previous year, otherwise called the accounting year, is a specified self-contained unit of time for the purpose of the assessment. Hence the pre-requisite condition for considering the application under Section 26 A and the rules male thereunder is the existence of the very deed of partnership in the course of the very accounting year in respect of which the registration is sought for. (See R. C. MITTER and SONS V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CALCUTTA (4) and N I. PA TEL and CO. , V. COMMISSIONER of INCOME TAX MADRAS. (5)

(17) THE Supreme Court, in R. C, MUTER and SONS V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CALCUTTA (4) ruled that"the following essential conditions must 03 fulfilled in order that a firm may be held entitled registration ;" (1) "that the firm should be constituted under an instrument of partnership, specifying the individual shares of the partners. (2) that an application am behalf of, and signed by all the partners, containing all the particulars as set out in the rules, has been made ; (3) that the application has been made before the assessment of the income of the firm, made under Section 23 of the act (omitting the words not necessary for our present purpose) for that particular year ; (4) That the profits (or loss if any) of the business relating to the previous year, that is to say the relevant accounting year, should have been divided or credited as the case may be, in accordance with the terms of the instruments, and lastly. (5) That the partnership, most have been genuine and must actually have existed in conformity with the terms and conditions of the instrument".

(18) IT is not in dispute that the conditions 2 to 5 enunciated in R. C. MITTER and SONS. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Calcutta (4) have been fulfilled in the instant case. The only condition that must be proved to have been satisfied is the constitution of a valid firm under the instrument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners.

(19) AS the clauses 8 and 9 in the original deed of partnership have been subsequently modified by the deed of rectification which was executed on March, 29, 1953. , before the close of the accounting year, the original deed should be read with the amendments made by the deed of rectification. We shall now examine the relevant clauses of the original deed of partnership read with the rectification deed. The preamble to the document reveals that 16 partners i.-e. 14 majors and partners 9 and 16, minors represented by partners 2 and 13 respectively, constituted the partnership with effect from April 1, 1954. The partners 1 and 2 are the managing partners who are entitled to carry on the mill business either jointly or severally at their mill. Clause 3 provides for investment for the firm by the partners according to their shares and clause 4 prohibits the partners from alienating or utilising the properties of the firm for their private benefit, Clause 5 says that the partnership will not be dissolved in case of the death of any partner by vis. major or acts of state. Clause 6 gives an option for the partners to purchase the share of any partner who wants to sell away his right, for the same price offered by outsiders. "the terms of the partnership are made binding by virtue of clause 7 on the incoming new partners if any, either by operation of law or by purchase. On a perusal of the true copy of the original deed of rectification, which is in Telugu, we do not find that the amended clauses 8 and 9 have been correctly translated in the annexure c. As the solution to the problem on hand largely depends on the construction of these two clauses, we feel it profitable and necessary to set out a true and correct translation of the amended clauses 8 and 9 at this stage. "the two managing partners shall get the correct accounts relating to the business of our firm written and close them by the 31st day of March, of every year and ascertain the profit and loss, and in case there is profit, all the said partners, shall divide the same between themselves, in proportion to their respective shares and in case there is loss, only those partners who are the guardians of the respective minors 9 and 16 shall bear and partners 9 and 16 have no relation or connection with the same loss. (Clause 8)As per our intention, it is decided that if at any time the mill sustains loss due to vis-major or act of State, only those partners who are the guardians of the respective minors (individuals 9 and 16)shall make good the amounts of loss, without deducting from the share capital of the partners 9 and 16, within the time fixed by the managing partners and minors, partners 9 and 16 have no relation or connection with the same" (Clause 9). Clauses 8 and 9 provide for the maintenance of accounts and ascertainment of profits or losses, as the case may be at the end of March, every year by the two managing partners and for division of profits or looses amongst the partners. Clause 10 prescribes the mode of raising or giving loans for conducting the business and for production of accounts before the sales-tax and Income-tax Authorities. The English translation, as per annexure a of Clause II which is allowed to remain in tact, on which strong reliance has been placed by the departmental counsel sri Ananta Babu, reads, thus.

Shares

Share

Capital

1.

Dwarampuci Adireddy.

0-3-0

13. 500

2;

Dwarampudi Ramakrishna Reddy.

0-3-6

15,750

3,

XXX

9.

Sabbella Atchayamma garu.

0-0-3

1. 125/-

13.

Madapati Mahalaxmamma garu.

0-0-5

2. 250/-

16.

Chinnam Seetharatnam garu,

0-0-6

2,250/-

(20) IT is settled law that the deed of partnership, for the purpose of registration under sec. 26 A of the Act, must be construed faulty and reasonably. The intention of the parties at the time of the execution of the deed of partnership as revealed from the clauses of the very instrument, is a relevant and material factor to find whether the minors been made full partners or they have been admitted only to the benefits of partnership. Mere mention of the minors as partners in the preamble and their being represented by their guardians in the execution of the document, will, in our considered opinion, nonetheless affect the validity of a genuine partnership. The decision of the Bombay High Court in COMMISSIONER OF income-TAX BOMBAY SOUTH vs. MD. KHALID FAQUTH and co. , (2) to the effect that the partners constituted by 10 persons of whom two were minors, under a deed of partnership signed by "the eight adults and by one major partner as guardian for the two minors, was contrary to law and could not be registered under Section 26 A of the Act as the partnership deed made the minors also full partners, and the decision of the Calcutta High Court in commissioner OF INCOME FAX WEST BENGAL Vs. KHETAN AND co. , (1) on which the conclusion of the Tribunal appears to have been based, are no longer good law in view of the decision of the supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MYSORE V. SHAH MOHANDAS SADHURAM (6) and COMMISSIONER OF income-TAX MYSORE Vs. SHAH JETHAJI PHULCHAND, (7)The Supreme Court, in the aforesaid cases, has ruled that the guardian can do all that is necessary to effectuate the conferment and receipt of benefits of partnership. It was observed, in commissioner OF INCOME-TAX MYSORE. Vs. SRAH MOHANDAS sadhuram (6) that the guardian is not only entitled to sever the minors connection with the firm, but is entitled to refuse- or agree to accept the benefits of partnership and has power to scrutinises the terms on which such benefits are received by the minor. At paga 420, Sikri, I who spoke for the Court, held;". . . . . as long as a partnership deed does not make a minor full partner a partnership deed cannot be regarded as invalid on the ground that a guardian has purported to contract on behalf of a minor if the contract is for the purposes mentioned shove. x. x. x. x. It need hardly be stated that the partnership deed must be construed reasonably".

(21) WE are unable to agree with Sri Ananta Babu that clause II of the partnership deed is the operative portion of the deed and the other provisions should be read in the light of that clause. The pertinent question that arises for decision is whether on a fair and reasonable construction of the deed of partnership read With the rectification deed, can it be said that the two minors have been made full partners as contended by the Department or only admitted to the benefit of the partnership as pleaded by the assessee the material clauses, in our considered opinion, are clauses and 9 which provide for the distribution of profits as well as losses, clause 8 makes it abundantly clear that the accounts have to be written and maintained by the managing partners and the accounts should be settled by the end of March, every year, and the profits, if any should be distributed amongst the partners including the minors as per the shares mentioned in clause 11. In case the firm incurs loss, it is specifically mentioned that the minors will not have any connection with the loss. Clause 9 also makes it clear that it is the guardians of the minor partners 9 and 16 that would be liable to pay the share of losses incurred by the firm due to vismajor or acts of State without touching the share capital of the minor partners already provided by them. The material and relevant Telugu words "9, 16 wsr-j*and tfoajo^abj -aandoisv employed in clauses 8 and 9," when read with in the context and the setting under which they have been used, would amply make it clear that the two minor partners 9 and 16 have, no kind of connection or nothing to do with the losses in case the firm or mill sustains any loss either in business or due to vis major or acts of State, The partners 2 and 13 have to bear the losses without encumbering the minor partners the partners, who happened to be the guardians, have agreed to pay the losses in respect of the minors shares without making the minors liable. In apportioning the losses, the partners Nos. 2 and 13 wilt not only bear their share of three and half annas and 6 paise of loss respectively but also pay the share of 3 paise and 6 paise respectively in respect of the minors without making them liable for the same Clause 11 and the other clauses must be read in the light of the material clauses 8 and 9 which provide for the distribution of profits and losses Clause 11 only provides for a process for the division of profits and losses. The shares mentioned in Clause 11 will be the basis for apportioning the profits as well as the losses. The only modification when the firm incurs loss is that the liability of partners 2 and 13 will be 3 anna 9 paise and one anna, instead of 3 annas 6 paise and 6 paise respectively, when they share the profits. Though the share of the partners 2 and 13, who happened to be the guardians, of the minors 9 and 16, changes when there is loss for the firm, there will be no change in the case of distribution of profits. It is also pertinent to notice that the shares of the adult partners other than 2 and 13 who represented the minors, are unaltered in the division of either profits or losses and they are not affected in any way.

(22) ON the basis of the interpretation of the clauses 8, 9 and 11, as pointed out earlier, it can be safely held that the shares of the partners have been specified in the deed of partnership, without any ambiguity or uncertainty. The Supreme Court, in KYLASA SARA-BHAIAH V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HYDERABADs)observed :". . . . . . . . . the substance of the agree me of cannot be permitted to be overshadowed merely by the use of the collective description of some of the persons who agreed to be partners, it was held in that case that the word "specifying" was used in Section 26 A of the Act and rule 2 of the Indian Income Tax rules 1922, as meaning "mentioning, describing or defining in detail". ; it did not mean expressly setting out in fractional or other shares". Where a large firm was constituted with 5 partners under a deed of partnership in which a smaller firm was described as the first partner and its members were collectively shown as having a share of 6 annas 9 paise in the profits of the larger firm and the four minors have been admitted to the benefits of partnership in the smaller firm with equal shares in the profits but the losses have to be shared by the three major partners, the Supreme Court held that the firm was entitled for registration as the deed of partnership specified the shares clearly though they were not worked out in precise fractions.

(23) THE mere mention of the proportionate shares of the partners including the minors in the profits and losses, in clause 11 of the partnership deed, will not in our view render the partnership an invalid one. In COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX MYSORE v. SHAH JETHAJI PHULCHAND (7) clause 9 in the partnership dead that fell for consideration was similar to clause II of the partition deed in our case. Clause 9 of the partnership deed in that case reads :"that the profits and loss of the company shall be shared by the partners in the following proportions irrespective of the contribution of the capital. Ist party shall be entitled to Rs. 0-3-6 iind Party shall be entitled to Rs. 0-3-0 iiird party shall be entitled to Rs. 0-3-3 ivth party shall be entitled to Rs. 0-3-0 vtb Party shall be entitled to Rs. 0-3-3 half an anna of the profits shall be credited to the charity fund. The-portion of loss to be contributed the 3rd party "is to be borne by the first party and adjusted in the accounts", The last portion of clause 9 provided that the portion of loss to be contributed by the 3rd party, S. Babulal minor son of the 1st partner Jethaji, bad to be borne by him and adjusted in the accounts. Sikri, J who spoke for the Court, after considering the relevant clauses of the partnership deed, observed at page 591 thus. We have just delivered judgment in COMMISSIONER of INCOME-TAX V. SHAH MOHANDAS SADHU-" KAM (6). In hat case we have held, that a partnership deed must be construed reasonably and that a guardian is entitled to do all things necessary for effectuate the conferment o! the benefits of partnership.

(24) THE question then arises whether the deed makes the minor a full partner or he has been admitted only to the benefits of partnership. There is no doubt that on a true interpretation of sub-clause (9), the minor is not to bar any losses; the losses are to be me by Nathmal Jethaji Sub-clause (16) does not make the minor a working partner. The only persons who were entitled to be the working partners are Nathmal Jethaji Phulchand Nathmal and sakalchand Thikmaji. It is in the light of these clauses that the other clauses Should be construed". In the case before us. the minors are neither entitled to manage the affairs of the firm nor liable to contribute any capital or share the losses.

(25) THE registration under the Indian Partnership Act on march, 30 1955 would not ipso-facto entitle the assessee to have the firm registered under Section 26 A for the purpose of income-tax. However, the recital in the application for registration under the Indian Partnership Act to the effect that the minors have been admitted only 10 the benefits of the partnership, is an admissible and relevant factor that can be taken into consideration in construing the material clauses of the instrument of partnership. Admittedly the application filed before the Registrar of Firms on March, 30 1955, though at the instance of the Registrar of Firms was modified showing the two minors as admitted only to the benefits of partnership on a fair, proper and reasonable construction and the cumulative effect of clause 8, 9 and 11 when read with other clauses of the amended deed of partnership which was admittedly in existence in the course of the year of account, coupled with the relevant recitals in the application filed by the firm for registration under the Indian partnership Act, 1955, before the Registrar of Firms on March, 30, 1955, we have no best action to hold that the two minors were not liable either to manage the affairs of bus ness, or to supply any capital or made to bear any loss incurred by the assessee in business or due to vis-major or acts of State, but have been admitted only to the benefit of partnership and they are not made full-fledged partners. The view of the Bombay, Madras and Patna High Courts as reflected in the Madras Hieh Courts leading case, JAKKA DEVA yya AND SONS V. COMMISSIONER OF INLOME-TAX (9) that where a minor is admitted as a full partner, the instrument can be registered after in eroretins it to mean that the minor was admitted only to the benefits of partnership but not as a full-fledged partner, has been over ruled by the Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF income TAX V. DWARAKADAS KHETAN (10) affirming the contrary view taken by the Calcutta, Allahabad and Punjab High Courts in HOOSEN KASAM DADA V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME tax (11) HARDUTT RAY GAJADHAR RAM V. COMMISSIONER of INCOME TAX (12) and BANKA MAL LAJJA RAM and CO. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (13)The decision of the Supreme court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V, DWARAKADAS khetan (10)on which strong reliance has been placed by the departments counsel in support of his plea that the assesses is not entitled for registration on the assumption that the two minors have been admitted as full partners, will not render much assistance to the department in the present case as the facts in that case are distinguishable from the facts of the one before us. In that case, the minor also was a signatory to the deed of partnership though his natural guardian also signed it. Under the terms of the deed, he was entitled to share in the profits and was also liable to bear all the losses including the loss of capital. The minor also had to attend to the business and he had to give his consent in writing when his consent was needed. On a reading of the several clauses of the instrument, it was clear that no distinction between the major partners and the minor partners was made in that case. Hence, the Supreme Court held that the minor in that case was made full partner but not admitted only to the benefits of partnership the decision therefore is not applicable to the present case as we have already arrived at a conclusion that the two minor partners 9 and 16 have been admitted only to the benefits of partnership and they are not liable for losses. On a careful consideration of the entitle facts and circumstances pointed out earlier, we have a hesitation to find that the assessee-firm has been constituted under a deed of partnership dated Feb. 24th 1955 read with deed of rectification executed on March, 29 1955, specifying the individual shares of the partners, that an application signed by all the partners furnishing all the requisite particulars as per the rules 2 to 4 of the Income Tax Rules 1922, for renewal of registration under Section 26-A of the Act was made for the assessment year 1956-57 within the prescribed time and that two minors have been admitted only to the benefits of partnership but not as full-fledged partners and that the partnership is genuine and valid. For all the reasons, we therefore answer the second question in the negative and in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The assessee will be entitled for his costs. Advocates fee Rs. 250/-.