COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX, BENGAL versus SRI KESHAB CHANDRA MANDAL

Citation: [1950] 1 S.C.R. 435 · Decided: 09-05-1950 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

S.~.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL 
INCOME-TAX, BENGAL 
V. 
SRI KESHAB CHANDRA MANDAL 
[SAIYID FAZL ALI, 
PATANJALI SASTRI, 
MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, MUKHERJEA 
and DAS JJ.] 
435 
Bdngal Agriciiltiiral Income-tax Act, (IV of 1944), ss. 24, 57-
Riiles u.nder the Act, r. 11, Forni No. 5-Ret11rn of illiterate assessee 
-Declaration signed by pen of son of a.ssessee-Va.Z-.-dity of ret11rn-
Signature by Agent-Permissibility-"· Qui facit per alium far.it 
per se, " applicability of. 
The Rules. framed under the Bengal Agricultural Income~tax 
Act, 1944, provided that the declaration in a return of income !;ad to 
be signed "in the case of an individual, by the individual himself." 
A return of au illiterate assessee, Keshab Chandra l\fandal, was 
signed in the vernacular as follows : " Sri Keshab Chftndrn l\Iandal 
Ba· Sri J ugal Chandra Manda!," the latter being the son of the 
asseosee. 
The Appellate Tribunal referred to the High Court the 
question "whether in the circumstances of the case, the dech1l'ation 
in the form of return signed by the illiterate assessee by the pen of 
his son should be treated as properly signed and a valid return." The 
Higa Court answered the question in the atlinnativo. 
On appeal : 
Held, per F.AZL ALI, PATANJALI SAS'.l'HI, 
IIIGKHEHJEA and 
DAS JJ. ('.\1.AHAJAN J. dissenting)-that the Bengal Agricultural 
Income-tax Act, 1944, and the Rules framed thereunder contained 
provisions indicating an intention to exclude the common law rule 
qui facit per alium facit per se in the matter of affixing signature to 
the return of income made by an assessee who was an individual, 
and, as it was abundantly clear on the records that there was no 
physical contact between the assessee and the signature appoating 
on the return, the return was not properly signed and was not a 
valid return. 
MAHAJAN J.-As the question referrnd was whether the return 
" signed by the illiterate assessee with the pen of his son " was 
valid, it must be assumed that there was such contact, and as there 
was nothing whatso.ever on the record to establish that the assessee 
did not touch the pen or the hand of the son when the signature 
\'Ill.to 11ffmid, ttle High Court was right in answering the question in 
the affirmative. 
Judgment of the Calcutta High Court revrrsed. 
55 
1950 
May 9 
436 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1950) 
1950 
APPEAL from the High Court of Judicature at 
'Commissioner Fort William: (Civil Appeal No. LXXXVUI of 1949.) 
-of Agricultural 
This was an appeal from the judgment and order 
Incom,·tax 
of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta dated 16th 
i<cs,,~b •Chandra :;epteRmbfer, 1948, d(G. N, hDaHs '.lnhdCR. P. Moodkerjee .i.J.) 
Mandal 
m a 
e erence ma e to t e 
1g 
ourt un er section 
63 (1) of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 
1944, by the Appellate Tribunal of Agricultural 
Income-tax, West Bengal. The facts are set out in 
the judgment. 
K. P. Khaitan (B. Sen, with him) for the appellant. 
The respondent was not represented. 
1950. May 9. 
The following judgments were 
delivered :-
.DasJ. 
DAS ].-There is no serious dispute as to the 
facts leading up to this appeal. They are shortly as 
follows: 
In response to a notice issued under section 24 (2) 
of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944, the 
assessee, who is the respondent before us, submitted a 
return showing his total agricultural ins;ome for the 
assessment year 1944-45 to be Rs. 335. 
This return is 
dated the 3rd April, 1945, and just below the declara-
tion appears the following writing in vernacular : 
"Sri Keshab Chandra Mandal." 
On the 18th April, 1945, the Agricultural Income-
tax Officer noted on the order sheet that the case 
would be taken up at Bankura Dak Bungalow on 6th 
May, 1945, and directed the office to inform the party 
to appear with all settlement records, vouchers etc. 
On the 6th May, 1945, the assesseefiledapetition before 
the Agricultµral Income-tax Officer who had gone to 
Bankura stating inter alia that he had been advised 
that the return which he had submitted before under 
the advice of a Headmaster of a school was not a proper 
return, that there were many mistakes in the return and 
many things had been omitted and that, therefore, it 
.was absolutely necessary for him to submit a fresh re-
turn and praying for fifteen days' time for doing so and 
.... 
-s·.C.R . 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
437 
also for a form of return. 
This petition was signed in 
1950 
vernacular as 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.