9911796707
TMI Blog1946 (2) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ishnamurthi JUDGMENT Patanjali Sastri, J. This reference arises out of an application made by one Hariprasada Rao before the Income-tax Officer for the renewal of the registration of a firm composed of himself and his brother Rao Bahadur Ravula Subba Rao. The application was rejected by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that it was not signed by both the partners personally as required by ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication for renewal of the certificate of registration and that, as Hariprasada Rao held a general power of attorney from Ravula Subba Rao, his signature on behalf of the latter was sufficient compliance with the rule. The Income-tax Officer negatived this contention and rejected the application. On appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the contention of the assessee was accepted with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is contended for the Commissioner that the word "personally" used in the rule necessarily excludes acting by an authorised agent and that therefore the view taken by the Assistant Commissioner was erroneous in law. We agree with this contention. The learned Advocate-General appearing for the assessee has drawn attention to Section 2 of the Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882, which reads thus:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he latter should be regarded as effectual in law as if Ravula Subba Rao had himself signed the application. We are unable to accept this view. The section merely states the general principle of agency and it cannot override the specific provisions of a rule made under a different statute which require that a particular act should be done by a person "personally," i.e., by himself. We an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
