Authorised agent may validly file and verify income-tax returns; discharge set aside and further inquiry directed.

A duly authorised agent could validly file and verify an income-tax return on behalf of the assessee because the statutory scheme did not require personal filing by the assessee. Applying the principle that an act done by an authorised agent is treated as the act of the principal, the court held that the sixth accused had authority under the power of attorney and the parties' conduct. The discharge founded solely on alleged lack of authority could not stand, and further inquiry was directed against the sixth accused on the surrounding material; the request as to accused 1 to 5 was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a duly authorised agent could validly file and verify an income-tax return on behalf of the assessee. (ii) Whether the material disclosed justified setting aside the discharge and directing further inquiry against the sixth accused under section 52 of the Income-tax Act.

Issue (i): Whether a duly authorised agent could validly file and verify an income-tax return on behalf of the assessee.

Analysis: The power of attorney conferred wide authority on the sixth accused to act for the firm, represent it before revenue authorities, and do all acts necessary in its interests. The conduct of the parties showed that he had long been acting as the firm's agent for income-tax matters and that the partners knew of and acquiesced in his filing returns. Section 22(2) and section 52 of the Income-tax Act did not require that the return be made only by the assessee personally. The principle that an act done by an authorised agent is done by the principal was applied to the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: A duly authorised agent could validly file and verify the return, and the sixth accused had such authority.

Issue (ii): Whether the material disclosed justified setting aside the discharge and directing further inquiry against the sixth accused under section 52 of the Income-tax Act.

Analysis: The order of discharge had proceeded on the mistaken view that the sixth accused had no authority in law or fact to make the return. Once that view was rejected, the surrounding circumstances of the manipulated accounts and the substantial suppression of profits required closer scrutiny by the trial court. The revisional court declined to pronounce finally on the sufficiency of proof, but considered the material enough to warrant further inquiry by the Magistrate. As to accused 1 to 5, the evidence did not justify sending them back for further inquiry.

Conclusion: The discharge of the sixth accused was set aside and further inquiry was directed against him, while the petition against accused 1 to 5 was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only in part by reviving proceedings against the sixth accused, but failed as to the remaining accused, leaving the factual questions for fresh consideration by the Magistrate.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory scheme does not require personal filing by the assessee, a return and verification made by a duly authorised agent are valid, and a discharge founded solely on the absence of such personal filing cannot stand.

---