MESSRS PRATAPMAL LUXMICHAND versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADHYA PRADESH.

Citation: [1956] 1 S.C.R. 91 · Decided: 08-02-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
91 
admissible for the purpose. 
In our judgment, the 
1956 
finding of the High Court on this issue was clearly Rafa Sri S~ilendra 
erroneous. 
Narayan Bhanja 
Each of the conclusions we have arrived at on the 
D•o 
first two points is quite sufficient, by itself, to enable 
v. 
. 
us to dispose of this appeal and it is not necessary for Th• Slate 01 Oms" 
us to deal with or express any opinion on the other 
-
Th 
1 
h 
Das C.J. 
three points canvassed before us. 
e resu t, t ere-
fore, is that this appeal should be dismissed with costs 
and we order accordingly. 
MESSRS PRATAP~AL LUXMICHAND 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADHYA 
PRADESH. 
[S. R. DAs, C. J., BHAGWATI and VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR JJ.] 
Registration of firm-Deed of partnership and application for 
registration not signed bu all partners-Refusal to register by the In· 
come-tax Officer-Powers of the Appellate Assistant Oommissione1·-
I ndian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), 1. 26-A-Indian Income-tax 
Rules, 1922, rule 2. 
The appellant (a firm) consisted of seven partners and a deed 
of partnership was executed by all the partners except one who 
happened to be in Jail being a security prisoner under the Defence 
of India Rules. 
An application for registration of the firm under 
s. 26-A of the India.n Income-tax Act was made before the Income-
ta.x Officer, who, however, rejected it on the ground that the deed of 
partnership and the application for registration were not signed by 
all the partners. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner 
cancelled the order of the Income-tax Officer and directed him to re-
gister the firm after obtaining the signature of the partner who had 
not signed before, both on the application for registration and the 
deed of partnership. 
Held, that under Rule 2(c) of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 
1922, £re.med under s. 26· A(2) of the Indian Income·tax Act, the 
Appellate Assistant Commissioner had only the power to direct 
registration of the firm if an application duly signed by all the 
partners had been presented to him before the assessment was con-
firmed, reduced, enhanced or a.nnulled and tha.t he wa.s not legally 
1956 
February 8 
92 
·SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1956] 
1956 
competent to direct the Income·tax Officer to register the firm after 
. 
obtaining the signature of the partner who had not signed before. 
Messrs Pratapmal 
Luxmicliand 
v. 
Commissioner of 
Income-tax, 
Madhya Pradesh 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
No. 199 ofl955. 
Civil Appeal 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated the 17th day of April 1953 of the Nagpur 
High Court in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 53 of 
1950. 
Nur-ud-din Ahmad and Naunit Lal, for the appel-
lant. 
0. K. Daphtary, Solicitoi·-General of India, G. N. 
Joshi and R.H. Dhebar, for the respondent. 
1956. February 8. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
BHAGWATI J.-This is an appeal with special 
leave from the Judgment and Order of the High Court 
of Judicature at Nagpur on a reference made by the 
Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Branch 'A' 
under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act XI 
of 1922 whereby the High Court answered the ref-
erred question against the appellant . 
. The appellant, a firm of Messrs Pratapmal Laxmi-
chand of Betul consisted of 7 partners, viz., Misrilal 
Goti, Meghraj Goti, Panraj Goti, Phulchand, Basanti" 
bai, Ratanbai and Gokulchand Goti. A deed of 
partnership was executed on the 12th February 1944 
by all the partners except Gokulchand Goti who 
happened to be in the Seoni Jail being a security 
prisoner under the Defence of India Rules. He was 
unable to sign the same in spite of all efforts to ob-
tain his signature in prison. An application for 
registration of the firm under section 26-A of the Act 
for the assessment year 1943-44 was made on the 24th 
March 1944 personally signed by the other 6 partners 
of the firm and was accompanied by the deed of 
partnership which also had been signed by those 6 
partners. The Special Income-tax Officer, Nagpur, 
rejected the application on the ground that the deed 
itself was not valid inasmuch as it had not been signed 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
93 
by all the partners mentioned in the body and there 
.195/i 
was no signature of Gokulchand on the deed and the Messrs Pratajmlal 
application. An appeal was taken to the Appellate 
Lu.miichand 
Assistant Commissioner against this decision of the 
v. 
Special Income-tax Officer o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.