The High Court, having considered the relevant terms of
the partnership deed in question, has reached the conclusion that the minors
were admitted as full-fledged partners and, therefore, the partnership deed was
not liable to be registered. The view taken by the High Court was doubted for
the subsequent year of assessment and the question was referred to Full Bench.
The Full Bench, by the decision reported in [1978] 115 ITR 796 (Addl. CIT v.
Uttam Kumar Pramod Kumar), has reiterated the view taken by the Division Bench
for the earlier assessment year.
We have ourselves examined the terms of the partnership
deed. We are unable to take a view different from the one expressed by the High
Court. Although the preamble of the deed provides that the minors were admitted
to the benefits of the partnership, the dominant intention of the parties as it
appears from the other terms of the deed unmistakably points out that the minors
were, in fact, admitted as full partners and not for benefits alone. There is,
therefore, no reason to disagree with the conclusion of the High Court.
The civil appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed
