T. VENKATAPPA, J.M. dispute in these appeals for asst. yrs. 1978-79 and 1979-80 is with regard to registration of firm. In partnership deed dt. 28th July, 1977 ratio of sharing of profit by partners has been given, but there is no clause with regard to sharing of losses. Before ITO assessee filed deed of agreement dt. 27th March, 1980 wherein ratio of sharing losses was shown. ITO did not accept agreement. He held that as partnership deed dt. 28th July, 1977 does not specify sharing of losses assessee-firm is not entitled for registration. Thus, he refused registration to assessee-firm for two years. On appeal, AAC upheld same. Against this, assessee has preferred these appeals. ld. counsel for assessee relying on decision of Supreme Court in case of Mandyala Govindu & Co. vs. CIT 1976 CTR (SC) 20: (1976) 102 ITR 1 (SC) submitted that it should be presumed that losses will be borne in same ratio of sharing profits. He also urged that in order of clarify position deed of agreement dt. 27th March, 1980 has b e e n executed and in view of this registration should be granted. departmental representative kly urged that decision of Supreme Court in Mandyala Govindu & Cos. case (supra) does not help assessee whereas decision of Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Best Automobiles (1979) 11 CTR (Ker) 33: (1979) 117 ITR 876 (Ker) is against assessee. Once sharing of losses is not specified assessee is not entitled for registration. With regard to agreement dt. 27th March, 1980 he submitted that it has been executed after accounting year. Hence, it cannot be taken into account for these two assessment years. He placed reliance on decision in case of N.T. Patel & Co. vs. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 224 (SC). We have considered rival submissions. Admittedly, in partnership deed dt. 28th July, 1977 sharing of loss by partners has not been specified. Under s. 184 of IT Act, 1961, application for registration in prescribed form should be made to ITO evidencing instrument of partnership and specifying individual shares of partners in that instrument. Form No. 11 is form prescribed for submitting application. In that form column 6 of Schedule refers to percentage of share in profit or losses. Thus, specification of shares in losses in partnership is necessary for granting registration. In Best Automobiles case (supra), Kerala High Court has, after referring to decision of Supreme Court in case of Mandyala Govindu & Co. (supra) held that there must be specification of shares in losses in instrument of partnership. In absence of specification of shares in losses registration cannot be granted. Similar view was taken by Kerala High Court in United Hardwares vs. CIT (1974) 96 ITR 348 (Ker) and CIT vs. Ithappiri and George (1973) 88 ITR 332 (Ker). We respectfully follow above decisions and hold that assessee in not entitled for registration as there is no specification of shares of losses in partnership deed. deed of agreement dt. 27th March, 1980 has been executed after close of accounting years for these two assessment years. Hence, that will not govern these two assessment years. In N.T. Patel & Co's case (supra) there was no specification of shares of partners in deed dt. 31st March, 1949. After close of accounting year deed of rectification was executed on 17th Sept., 1955. On these facts, Supreme Court held that partnership deed dt. 31st March, 1949 did not specify shares and that condition was fulfilled by deed of rectification dt. 17th Sept., 1955. Supreme Court held that assessee is not entitled for registration as there is no specification of shares of partners in partnership deed dt. 31st March, 1949. contention that rectification deed 17th Sept., 1955 clarifies position and registration should be granted was not accepted. above ratio equally applies to instant case. Thus, deed of agreement dt. 27th March, 1980, executed after close of accounting years cannot be taken into account these two assessment years, and that will not govern two years. decision of Supreme Court in Mandyala Govindu & Co's case (supra) does not help assessee as point relating to specification of shares in losses in partnership deed was not decided though conflict of view on that was noticed. That decision was considered by Kerala High Court in Best Automobiles' case (supra). Thus, in our view, assessee is not entitled for registration as there is no specification of shares in losses in partnership deed. We uphold order of AAC. In result, appeals fail and are dismissed. *** OUTDOOR PUBLICITY v. INCOME TAX OFFICER