controversy in this appeal is regarding allowing registration to assessee- firm. Assessee firm was constituted on 15th July 1977 by six partners. Alok Kumar Sahrma minor was admitted to benefits of partnership with 12 per cent share. Alok Kumar Sharma did not contribute any capital nor did he render any services to partnership. ITO examined three of six partners of assessee-firm, namely, Shahdev Kumar Dubey Ramnarain Dubety and Chironjilal Goyal. All three partners stated that Alok Kumar Sharma was admitted to benefits of partnership because his father Govind Ram Sharma rendered services to assessee firm, Govind Ram Sharma was employed as driver in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corpn. According to these three partners, Govind Ram Sharma worked as part time driver/labour supervisor for assessee firm (which was carrying on construction business). These three partners admitted that this position was known to all partners that Alok Kumar Sharma was benamidar of his father. On these facts, ITO held that cl. (b) of Explanation to s. 185(1) operated and assessee had to file declaration under r. 24A in Form No. 12A and having not complied with same firm was not entitled to registration. Expln. to s. 185(1) reads as under::Explanation: For purposes of this section and section 186, firm shall not be regarded as genuine firm if any partner of firm was, in relation to whole or any part of his share in income or property of firm, at any time during previous year, benamidar (a) ........... (b) of any person not being partner of firm, and any of other partners knew or had reason to believe that first mentioned partner was such benamaidar and such knowledge or belief had not been communicated by such other partner of ITO in prescribed manner," CIT(A) has not addressed himself to non-compliance with aforesaid Expln. to s. 185(1) but has made general observations regarding assessee firm complying with other statutory formalities and that Govind Ram Sharma had signed partnership deed in capacity as guardian of minor Alook Kumar Sharma and that ITO had not brought on record any positive material evidence to support allegation that minor was benamidar of assessee firm and that there was nothing wrong with further looking after minor's interest in firm. These general observations according to us are of no avail when assessee had not complied with statutory provisions of explanation to s. 185(1). Registration is benefit given to assessee and assessee had to strictly comply with legal provisions for availing of said benefit (Shri Rama Mohan Motor Service vs. CIT 1973 CTR ((SC)) 247: (1973) 89 ITR 274 (SC). Thus, assessee firm had to comply with provisions of aforesaid Explanation and had to submit Form No. 12A to ITO as per provisions of r. 24A. assessee has not complied with said provision. Id. Counsel for assessee tried to urge that there were some discrepancies in statements of three partners. We however do not find any major discrepancy between their statements. They all admitted that minor Alok Kumar Sharma was benamidar of his father Govind Ram Sharma and other partners knew about it. It is immaterial that two of these deponents stated that all other partners know shout it and third eartner stated that some partners knew about it. We also do not see any merit in assessee's contention that ITO should have given notice to firm to treat it as non-genuine because of non-compliance with Expln. to s. 185(1) or that Shri Govid Ram Sharma had not been examined by ITO. Sec. 2(23) defines firm, partner and partnership having same meanings as assigned to them in Indian Partnership Act but makes departure by laying down that expression "partner' shall also include any person who, being minor had been admitted to benefits of partnership. Thus admission of minor to benefits of partnership would also be covered by aforesaid Expln. to s. 185(1). assessee having not complied with said statutory provision of Expln. to s. 185(1), we hold that ITO was right in refusing registration to assessee firm. We accordingly vacate order of CIT(A) and restore that of ITO. In result, Revenue's appeal is allowed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. GOYAL CONSTRUCTION CO.