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

CIVIL APPEAL No. 56/1954Supreme Court[1956] 1 S.C.R. 57709 May 1956Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: SUDHI RANJAN DAS, NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI, T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR SUPREME COURT REPORTS RAVULA SUBBA RAO AND ANOTHER15 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, a firm with two partners, Ravula Subba Rao and Hariprasada Rao, applied for renewal of its registration under Section 26-A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1943-44 and 1944-45. The application was signed by Hariprasada Rao for himself and as attorney for Subba Rao, who was on a pilgrimage. The Income-tax Officer rejected the application, holding that the signature of an agent was invalid as Rules 2 and 6 required the application to be signed 'personally' by all partners. This decision was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal. The assessee appealed to the High Court, which referred two questions to it. The High Court, by a majority, answered the first question in the affirmative and the second question in the affirmative, leading to the present appeals.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the word 'personally' in the Income Tax Rules, as framed under Section 59 of the Income Tax Act, would exclude a duly authorised agent of a partner from signing an application on behalf of the partner under Section 26-A of the Act. The Court reasoned that the Indian Income Tax Act is a self-contained code and its provisions show an intention to depart from the common rule that 'qui facit per alium facit per se' (he who acts through another acts himself). The intention is that a firm should only receive the benefit of Section 23(5)(a) if it is registered under Section 26-A in accordance with the conditions laid down in that section and the rules framed thereunder. As these rules require the application to be signed by the partner in person, a signature by an agent on his behalf is invalid. The Court also held that Rules 2 and 6 are not ultra vires the rule-making authority. The appeals were dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the word 'personally' in Rules 2 and 6 of the Income Tax Rules, framed under Section 59 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, excludes a duly authorised agent from signing an application on behalf of a partner under Section 26-A of the Act? (Question of law) 2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether Rules 2 and 6 are ultra vires the rule-making authority? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: - The word 'personally' in the rules does not exclude signature by an agent on behalf of a partner. - Rules 2 and 6 are ultra vires the powers of the rule-making authority. Revenue's contentions: - The revenue did not record any specific contentions in the judgment, but implicitly supported the Income-tax Officer's rejection of the application based on the interpretation of 'personally' and the validity of the rules.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 26-A,Section 59,Section 23(5)(a),Section 66(1),Section 66-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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 th

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 59

All 26 judgments and leading authorities on Section 59 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →