Judgment :- R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. The Revenue asserts that the losses incurred by the assessee when it was assessed as unregistered firm, the same firm subsequent to its registration, is not entitled to carry forward and set off such losses. This contention is bereft of any force having regard to the language of section 71(1) as also section 75 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The loss which cannot be set off against any other income of the firm is required to be apportioned among the partners whether or not the firm is registered. When the same firm continues the loss incurred during the period when it was not registered, continues to be an item which is capable of being apportioned even after its registration. The provisions dealing with registered firms under the said Act do not prescribe that such loss pertaining to a period when the firm was not registered cannot be apportioned among the partners subsequent to the registration of the firm. The registration of the firm makes a difference mainly, in terms of the rate and mode of tax and confers certain other benefits. Those provisions are not intended to deprive the firm of the benefits conferred by any other provision. The intention to deprive is not found in the express language of those provisions nor can any such intention be inferred from the provisions. The provisions dealing with the registered firms, inter alia, set out the benefit to which the registered firm is entitled, besides providing for the mode and conditions subject to which registration can be granted or renewed and those provisions do not require that all events pertaining to the firm during the period when it was not registered should be ignored. A view similar to the one taken by us is also the view of other High Courts. A view similar to the one taken by us is also the view of other High Courts. The High Courts of Kerala, Karnataka as also Punjab and Haryana in their decisions in the cases of Excel Productions v. CIT, CIT (Addl.) v. B. S. Dall Mills and CIT v. Sunil Theatre, respectively, have taken a similar view.We, therefore, answer the question referred to us which reads as follows : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of section 77(2) of the Income-tax Act, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the unabsorbed losses of the earlier years when the firm was assessed as an unregistered firm should also be carried forward and set off and apportioned amongst the partners ?" in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.