Personal signature requirement for firm registration applications upheld under the income-tax rules despite power-of-attorney agency claims.

Rules 2 and 6 of the Income-tax Rules, framed under the special registration scheme for firms, required the application for registration or renewal to be personally signed by all partners, and a duly authorised agent could not sign in their place. The rules were upheld as valid because the parent Act empowered rule-making on the person by whom the application was to be made and the manner of verification, and a special taxing statute could lawfully require personal compliance for the statutory privilege of registration. The general law of agency under the Powers-of-Attorney Act did not override these specific rules, so the provisions were not ultra vires.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Rules 2 and 6 of the Income-tax Rules precluded a duly authorised agent of a partner from signing an application for registration or renewal of registration of a firm under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. (ii) Whether Rules 2 and 6 were ultra vires the rule-making authority by reason of their effect on the power of agency recognised by the Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882.

Issue (i): Whether Rules 2 and 6 of the Income-tax Rules precluded a duly authorised agent of a partner from signing an application for registration or renewal of registration of a firm under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: Section 26A(2) authorised the making of rules prescribing the person or persons by whom the application was to be made, the form of the application, and the manner of verification. Rules 2 and 6 expressly required that the application be signed personally by all the partners. The special statutory scheme for registration of firms required strict compliance with those rules, and the language used excluded signing through an agent.

Conclusion: Yes. The rules excluded signature by an authorised agent and required personal signature by the partners.

Issue (ii): Whether Rules 2 and 6 were ultra vires the rule-making authority by reason of their effect on the power of agency recognised by the Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882.

Analysis: Section 59 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 empowered the rule-making authority to frame rules carrying out the purposes of the Act, and rules validly framed under that provision had effect as if enacted in the Act. The special provision governing registration of firms was treated as controlling the general rule in Section 2 of the Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882. A rule made under the special taxing statute could lawfully prescribe personal compliance for the grant of the statutory privilege of registration, and such a rule was not repugnant to the parent Act.

Conclusion: No. Rules 2 and 6 were intra vires and valid.

Final Conclusion: The statutory conditions for renewal of registration had to be complied with personally by the partners, and the applications signed through an authorised agent could not defeat the rules validly framed under the Income-tax Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special taxing statute expressly authorises rule-making as to the person who must make and sign an application, a valid rule requiring personal signature prevails over the general law of agency and is not ultra vires merely because it excludes execution through a power-of-attorney agent.

---