RAVULA SUBBA RAO AND ANOTHER versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS.

Citation: [1956] 1 S.C.R. 577 · Decided: 09-05-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
RAVULA SUBBA RAO AND ANOTHER 
v. 
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 
MADRAS. 
577 
[S. R. DAS C.J., BHAGWATI and VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR JJ.) 
Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (Act XI of 1922), ss. 26-A; 69, 
Rules 2 and 6 framed under s. 69-Word 'personally' in theRules-
Whether excludes a duly authorised agent from signing an application 
on behalf of the partner. under s. 26·A-Rules 2 and 6-Whether 
ultra. vires the rule-making authority-Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 
-Whether exhaustive of the matters dealt with therein. 
Rules 2 a.nd 6 of the Rules fro.med under s. 59 of the Indian 
Income Ta.x Act provide tha.t a.n a.pplica.tion for registration of a. 
firm under s. 26-A of the Act a.nd for renewal of registration certifi· 
ca.be "shall be signed persona.Hy by a.ll the parties". 
Held that the word 'personally' in the Income Ta.x Rules, as 
framed under s. 59 of the Income Tax Act would exclude a duly 
authorised agent of a partner of a firm signing an application on 
behalf of the partner under s. 26-A of the Income Tax Act. 
(2) That Rules 2 and 6 a.re not· ultra vires the rule-making 
authority. 
To decide the question whether on its true interpretation the 
Indian Income Tax Act intended tha.t an application under s. 26-A 
should be signed by the partner personally, or whether it could be 
signed by his a.gent on his behalf t)le Court must have regard not 
-
only to the language of s. 96· A but also to the character of the 
legislation, the scheme of the Act and the nature of j;he right con· 
ferred by the section. 
· 
The Indian Income Tax Act is a self-contained code exhaustive 
of the matters dealt with therein, and its provisions show an inten· 
tion to depart from the common rule,' qui facit per alium facit per 
88. 
Its intention again is that a firm should be given benefit of 
s. 23(5)(a), only if it is registered under s. 26-A in accordance 
with the conditions laid down in that section and the rules 
framed thereunder. And as those rules require the application to 
be signed by the partner in person, the signature by an agent 
on his behalf is in valid. 
Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax v. Kesha-b Chandra 
Mandal, ([1950] S.C.R 435), relied upon. 
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Subba Rao, ([1947) I.L.R. 
Mad. 167) approved. 
Other case-law referred to. 
76 
1956 
May9 
1956 
Ravula Subba Rao 
and another 
v. 
The Comtnissiontf' 
of Income.tax, 
-
Madras 
578 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1956) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Nos. 56 & 57 of1954. 
Civil Appeals 
Appeal from tho judgment and order dated the 
25th day of March 1951 of the Madras High Court in 
Case Referred Nos. 32 of 1948 and 31 of 1950. 
K. S. Krishnaswami Iyengar, (K. R. Ohoudhry, 
with him) for the appellants. 
G, N. Joshi and P. -G. Gokhale, for the respon-
dent. 
1956. May 9. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
VENKATARAMA AYYAR J.-The appellant is a firm 
which was Qonstituted under a deed of partnership 
dated 10-2-1941, and consists of two partners, Subba 
Rao and Hariprasada Rao. On 21-3-1942 it was 
registered under section 26-A of the Indian Income-
Tax Act No. XI of 1922, hereinafter referred to as 
the Act, for the assessment year 1942. Sometime 
thereafter, one of the partners, Subba Rao, is stated 
to have left on a long pilgrimage, and the affairs of 
the partnership were then managed by Hariprasada 
Rao as his agent under a general power-of-attorney 
dated 1-7-1940. Hariprasada Rao then applied under 
rules 2 and 6 of the rules framed under section 59 of 
the Act, for renewal of the registration certificate for 
the year 1942-43, and the application was signed by 
him for himself and again as the attorney of Subba 
Rao. Those rules provide that an application for 
registration of a firm under section 26-A and for 
renewal of registration certificate "shall be signed 
personally by all the partners". The Income-tax 
Officer rejected the application for renewal on the 
ground that it was not personally signed by one of 
the partners, Subba Rao, and that the signature of 
Hariprasada Rao as his agent was not valid. 
The 
order was taken in appeal, and was ultimately the 
subject of a reference under section 66(1) of the Act 
to the High Court of Madras, which held that the 
word "personally" in rule 6 required that the partner 
-
-
-
• 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
579 
should himself sign the application, and that the 
7956 
principles of agency under the general law were Ra'Vula Subba Rao
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.