The other contention of the appellant is that it is not essential for registration under sec. 26A of the Act that the shares of the partners in the losses must be specified in the partnership deed. In support of this contention reliance is placed mainly on two decisions, one of the Mysore High Court : R. Sannappa and Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore(') and the other of the Allahabad High Court: Hiralal Jagannath Prasad v. ·Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.(2 ) On behalf of the revenue it is claimed on the authority of a decision of the Gujarat High Court, Thacker & Co. v. Commissioner of Incometax, Gujarat(3 ), that the shares in the profits and losses have both to be specifically stated in the instrument of partnership in order to comply with the conditions laid down in sec. 26A to obtain registration. The view taken by the Gujarat High Court appears to have been followed by the Kerala High Court in the following cases among others : C. T. Palu & Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala(4) am! Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala v. lthappiri & George("), There is thus a conflict of opinion in the High Courts on the point. It will not be necessary, however, for the purpose of this appeal to consider at any length the conflicting views of the different High Courts and decide which view is correct according to us because on the facts of the case the appeal is bound to fail on any view. It is not, and it cannot be, disputed that the Income-tax Officer before allowing the application for registration must be in a position to ascertain the shares of the partners in the losses even if sec. 26A did not require the shares in the losses to be specified in the instrument of partnership. Counsel for the appellant argues that clause 9 of the instrument refers to sec. 13 (b) of the. Partnership Act by implication and, accordingly, in the absence of any contrary indication, it must be held that the partners are liable to share the lbsses equally. The argument is not based on a correct appreciation of the scope of sec. 13 (b) and the facts of the case. Sec. 13 (b), it seems plain to us, makes the partners liable to contribute equally to the losses only when they are entitled to share equally in the profits. In this case the shares of the partners are not equal. In the absence of any indication to the contrary, where the partners have agreed to share the profits in certain proportions, the presumption is that the losses are also to be shared in like proportions. Jessel M. R. states the principle in In re Albion Life Assurance Society(6 ) as follows :
