DULICHAND LAKSHMINARAYAN vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NAGPUR.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 195/1955Supreme Court[1956] 1 S.C.R. 15417 February 1956Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: SUDHI RANJAN DAS, NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI, T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR12 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

For the assessment year 1949-1950, an application was made under Section 26-A of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922, for the registration of an unregistered firm, Dulichand Lakshminarayan. This firm was constituted by a Deed of Partnership dated February 17, 1947. The deed listed five constituent parties: three separate firms (Dulichand Lakshminarayan, Jairamdas Hiralal, and Laxminarayan Chandulal), a Hindu undivided family business (Mukhram Bholaram), and an individual (Mangatrai Ganpatram). The Income-Tax Officer rejected the application, holding that a firm or HUF cannot enter into a partnership with other firms or individuals. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the assessee's appeal, but the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal directed registration. The Commissioner of Income Tax applied to the High Court, which held that the assessee was not entitled to registration.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that a firm, as defined by Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, is not a "person" in law but merely an association of individuals. The word "persons" in Section 4 contemplates only natural or artificial legal persons. Therefore, a firm, as such, is not entitled to enter into a partnership with another firm, a Hindu undivided family, or an individual. Consequently, there could be no question of registering such a purported partnership under Section 26-A of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922. The Court also noted that even if the partnership were considered valid, the application for registration failed to meet the requirements of Section 26-A and Rule 2, as it did not specify the individual shares of all partners in the constituent firms and not all partners had personally signed the application. The High Court's decision was upheld.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a firm, as defined under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, is considered a "person" capable of entering into a partnership with other firms, a Hindu undivided family, or an individual, for the purposes of registration under Section 26-A of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922? (Question of law turning on Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and Section 26-A of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922). Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the deed clearly indicated the intention for each of the five constituent entities to be partners in the larger firm. They contended that the individuals signing on behalf of the firms and the HUF had the authority to do so and that the partnership was validly constituted. Revenue's contention: The revenue argued that a firm, not being a legal "person," cannot enter into a partnership with another firm, an HUF, or an individual. They also contended that even if the partnership were considered valid, the application for registration did not meet the requirements of Section 26-A and Rule 2, as individual partners' shares were not specified, and not all partners had personally signed the application.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 26-A,Section 2(6-B),Section 4,Section 66(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

7956 February 17 154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS DULICHAND LAKSHMIN ARA YAN v. [1956] THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NAGPUR. [S. R. DAS, C.J., BHAGWATI and VENKATARAMA AYYAR, JJ.] Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (Act XI of 1922), s. 26·A and 2( 6·B)-Indian Partnership Act, 1982 (Act IX of 1982), s. 4-Regis· tration of an unregistered firm constituted under a deed of partnership-Five con&tituent parties-Three separate firms consti .. tuted under three separate deeds of partnership-Sianaturcs on deed by three different persons on behalf of three firms.respec- tively-Fourth party a Hindu undivided family of which karta put the signature on deed-Fifth party an individual-Whether registration of 8'tch afirm competent under s. 26-Aof Indian In· come Tax Act, 1922-Firm and partnership-Definitions of-Indian Partnership Act, 1982, s. 4-Firm-Firm name-Partnership- Partner-Meanings of-Partnership, general concept of-Word "per· sons" ins. 4-Meaning of-Firm-Whether a person and whether entitled to enter into partnership with another firm or Hindu un· dividedfamily or individuals.

In connection with the assessment for the assessment year 1949·1950 of Dulichand Lakshminarayan an u

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 4

All 1,127 judgments and leading authorities on Section 4 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →