There is delay of two days in preferring these two appeals. petition has been filed giving reasons for delay. We accept reason given therein and condone delay of two days. 2. These appeals are filed again order of Commissioner, Hyderabad made under section 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') canceling order of ITO granting registration to assessee for assessment year 1979-80 and continuation of registration for assessment year 1980-81 and directing him to take status as unregistered firm and recompute tax payable. instrument of partnership dated 23-7-1977 was executed constituting assessee-firm with 10 partners of whom one Shri B. Umamaheswara Reddy was shown as full-fledged partner. It was found that he was minor at time of execution of deed. He became major only on 5-4-1978. Hence, in assessment year 1978-79 registration was refused by ITO which was upheld on appeal by Commissioner (Appeals). For assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, assessee had originally filed application in Form No. 12, Subsequently, assessee filed Form No. 11 on 3- 1-1982 accompanied by letter dated 18-1-1982 stating that after attaining majority he decided to continue as full-fledged partner agreeing to all terms and conditions of partnership deed executed on 23-7-1977. For 1980-81 application in Form No. 12 was filed. ITO granted registration for assessment year 1979-80 and allowed continuation of registration for assessment year 1980-81. Commissioner issued notice under section 263 as he was of view that orders of ITO for two years are erroneous and prejudicial to interests of revenue. After considering submissions of assessee, he held that partnership deed executed on 23-7-1977 is invalid one as Shri B. Umamaheswara Reddy who was minor was shown as full-fledged partner. invalid partnership which is void ab initio and non est in eye of law cannot be revived by minor after attaining majority by filing letter that he has decided to continue as full-fledged partner. In circumstances, as partnership sought to be registered is not evidenced by valid instrument, ITO is not correct in allowing registration for assessment year 1979-80 and continuation of registration for assessment year 1980-81. He cancelled those orders and directed ITO to take status as unregistered firm. Against same, assessee has preferred these appeals. 3. learned counsel for assessee kly urged that Shri B. Umamaheswara Reddy became major on 5-4-1978 during accounting year relevant to assessment year 1979-80. By letter dated 18-1-1982 Shri B. Umamaheswara Reddy stated that after attaining age of majority, he decided to continue as full-fledged partner agreeing to all terms and conditions of deed dated 23-7-1977. He signed Form No. 11 as full-fledged partner for assessment year 1979-80 and Form No. 12 for assessment year 1980- 81. Thus, there was valid partnership in existence during these two years and ITO was right in granting registration to assessee-firm for 1979-80 and continuation of registration for 1980-81, and Commission was not justified in cancelling orders of ITO. He placed k reliance on Full Bench decision of Kerala High Court in CIT v. Phair Laboratories [1985] 154 ITR 141. 4. learned departmental representative kly urged that since partnership deed executed on 23-7-1977 was invalid one as minor was shown as full-fledged partner and invalid deed cannot be validated by subsequent letter dated 18-1-1982. Thus, there was no valid partnership deed in existence during these two years. Hence, assessee is not entitled to registration. Thus, he supported order of Commissioner. 5. We have considered rival submissions. In partnership deed dated 23-7-1977 no doubt Shri B. Umamaheswara Reddy was shown as full- fledged partner though he was minor. He attained majority only on 5-4-1978 during accounting year relevant to assessment year 1979-80. Though initially only Form No. 12 was filed for assessment years 1979-80 and 1980- 81, subsequently, applications in Form No. 11 for assessment year 1979-80 and in Form No. 12 for assessment year 1980-81 were filed duly signed by Shri. B. Umamaheswara Reddy as full-fledged partner. Letter dated 18-1-1982 of Shri B. Umamaheswara Reddy was also stated that after attending age of mejority he de cided to continue as full-fledged partner in partnership firm agreeing to all terms and conditions of partnership deed executed on 23- 7-1977. It is clear from above facts that during these years Shri. B. Umamaheswara Reddy was major as he attained majority on 5-4-1978. He signed application in Form No. 11 for assessment year 1979-80 and in Form No. 12 for 1980-81 as full-fledged partner accepting all terms and conditions of partnership deed. Even though he was minor at time of execution of deed on 23-7-1977 he was major during these two years and he accepted terms of partnership deed by letter dated 18-1-1982 and signed Form No. 11 as full-fledged partner. Thus, in our view, there is no infirmity n granting registration to assessee-firm for assessment year 1979-80 and continuation of registration for 1980-81. 6. In Phair Laboratories' case (supra) one Shri C. V. Cyriac was minor at time of execution of partnership deed dated 10-12-1963. He reached age of majority on 26-7-1964. For assessment year 1966-67, application in Form No. 11 was filed which was signed by all partners including Shri C. V. Cyriac. On those facts, question arose whether assessee is entitled to registration. Full Bench of Kerala High Court held that though Shri C. V. Cyriac was minor on date of execution of original partnership deed he had become major in year previous to assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 and was under no disqualification to be partner at any time during year previous to assessment year 1966-67 when registration was sought and granted on basis of instrument containing names of all partners and their particulars as well as full details regarding their individual shares. instrument was accompanied by application in Form No. 11 signed by all partners including Shri C. V. Cyriac thereby indicating that he accepted all terms of instrument and signified his consent to be full partner. mere fact that Shri C. V. Cyriac was not major on date of execution of original partnership deed could not prevent it from being registered. Thus, ITO was not justified in cancelling registration. above ration squarely apples to instant case, as facts are identical in both cases. We respectfully follow above decision. 7. In our view, ITO was justified in granting registration to assessee-firm for assessment year 1979-80 and allowing continuation of registration for assessment year 1980-81. We are unable to agree with reasons given by Commissioner in his order. We cancel order of Commission passed nude section 263 for assessment years 1979-80 and Commission passed nude section 263 for assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 directing ITO to take status of assessee as unregistered firm. We restore orders of ITO granting registration for assessment year 1979-80 and allowing continuation of registration for assessment year 1980-81. 8. In result, appeals are allowed. *** TIRUMALA BORE WELLS DRILLING CO. v. INCOME TAX OFFICER