K.S. Paripoornan, J.
1. At the instance of the same assessee, the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales tax, Kannur, has referred certain questions of law for the decision of this court in the above three referred cases. The questions of law referred in the above cases are as follows :
Income-tax Reference No. 586 of 1985 :
'1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner was right in holding that the firm was not entitled to get registration or renewal of registration under Section 27 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950
2. Whether the Deputy Commissioner was right in holding that the proceeding evidenced by annexure B did not preclude his coming to the conclusion that the firm was not entitled to get registration in the year 1965-66
3. Whether the proceedings initiated under Section 34 were valid and maintainable in law In any event were not the said proceedings barred by time and without jurisdiction ?'
Income-tax Reference No. 4 of 1986 :
'1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner was right in holding that the firm was not entitled to get registration or renewal of registration under Section 27 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950
2. Whether the Deputy Commissioner was right in holding that the proceedings evidenced by annexure B did not preclude his comingto the conclusion that the firm was not entitled to get registration in the year 1965-66
3. Whether the proceedings initiated under Section 34 were valid and maintainable in law In any event were not the said proceedings barred by time and without jurisdiction
4. Whether the cancellation of the orders of assessments for 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 were not without jurisdiction and illegal ?'
Income-tax Reference No. 40 of 1986 :
'1. Whether the Commissioner was right in holding that the firm was not entitled to get registration or renewal of registration under Section 27 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950
2. Whether the Commissioner was right in holding that the proceedings evidenced by the earlier revision order in AIT RP 13, 14, 15/68-69 dated March 3, 1969, did not preclude his coming to the conclusion that the firm was not entitled to get registration in the year 1975-76
3. Whether the proceedings initiated under Section 34 were valid and maintainable in law In any event were not the said proceedings barred by time and without jurisdiction ?'
2. Income-tax Reference No. 586 of 1985 relates to the assessment year 1965-66, Income-tax Reference No. 4 of 1986 relates to the assessment years 1969-70 to 1974-75 and Income-tax Reference No. 40 of 1986 relates to the assessment year 1975-76. The matter arises under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. The sole question that arises for consideration is whether the applicant/assessee-firm is entitled to registration.
3. We heard counsel for the applicant/assessee, Mr. Premjit Nagendran, and counsel for the Revenue, senior Government Pleader, Mr. V.C. James. We should bear in the background that an identical matter as to whether the assessee-firm is entitled to registration was considered in detail by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax in Revision Cases Nos. 13 to 15/68-69, by order dated March 3, 1969. In the said order, the Commissioner took the view that the registration granted by the assessing authority on the basis of the partnership deed dated January 6, 1959, is valid and the firm is entitled to registration and the decision to the contrary by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is incorrect. In consequence, the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax set aside the appellate order in respect of the registration of the firm and restored the order of the assessing authority.
4. The above referred cases along with other cases were referred to the Full Bench to decide the larger question as to whether the deed of partnership itself should specify the percentage of profit and loss each partner is entitled to. The matter was considered in detail by a Full Bench of this court in Kerala Publicity Bureau v. CIT and Balakrishnan Nair v. Commr. of Agrl. I. T. : [1993]200ITR366(Ker) . In paragraph 47 (at page 390 of 200 ITR) of the judgment of the Full Bench, it is stated that, in the absence of any indication to the contrary in the partnership deed, the partners should he taken to have agreed to share the profits equally and liable to contribute to the loss also equally and, in this perspective, the sole question that arose for consideration in Income-tax Reference No. 49 of 1982 and the first question referred to this court in Income-tax References Nos. 586 of 1985 and 4 and 40 of 1986 were answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. It follows that the assessee-firm is entitled to get registration or renewal of registration under Section 27 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act ; that is so for all the years covered by Income-tax References Nos. 586 of 1985 and 4 and 40 of 1986, in view of the decision of the Full Bench.
5. By giving effect to the decision of the Full Bench, we hold that the applicant/firm is entitled to registration for the relevant assessment years 1965-66, 1969-70 to 1974-75 and 1975-76. Since the larger question regarding the entitlement to registration has been answered in favour of the assessee, other questions in the alternative as to whether the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales tax was justified in invoking Section 34 of the Act and in refusing registration or as to whether the Deputy Commissioner was justified in deviating from the order of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax dated March 3, 1969, do not really arise for consideration. The consideration of those alternate aspects or questions is really academic since the main question itself has been answered in favour of the assessee, namely, that the assessee-firm is entitled to registration for all the years covered by these referred cases.
6. In this perspective, we decline to answer the questions in the above referred cases, other than question No. 1. As stated already, question No. 1 has already been answered by the Full Bench in the decision reported in Kerala Publicity Bureau v. CIT ; Balakrishnan Nair's case : [1993]200ITR366(Ker) , in favour of the assessee which shall be given effect to in all these cases by the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
7. The references are answered in favour of the assessee and we hold that, since the assessee is entitled to registration, following the Full Benchdecision of this court dated January 21, 1993, it is unnecessary to answer the other questions at this stage.
8. The references are answered accordingly.
9. The Registrar shall send a copy of this judgment under his signature and seal of this court to the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kannur. By way of caution, a copy of this judgment shall also be sent to the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Board of Revenue (Taxes), Trivandrum, since the statement has been forwarded to this court by the Commissioner.