Personal signature requirement for firm registration prevails over agency law, and agent-signed applications do not satisfy the statutory scheme.

A fiscal statutory benefit for firm registration had to be claimed in strict compliance with the Act and rules, and a personal signature requirement meant the partner himself had to sign; a signature by a duly authorised agent was insufficient. Rules 2 and 6, which required personal signature, were treated as intra vires and not repugnant to the Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882, because the income-tax scheme was self-contained and operated in a distinct field from the general law of agency. The ordinary rule allowing acts through an agent was therefore not imported into the statutory registration scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the word "personally" in the rules governing applications for registration of a firm excluded signature by a duly authorised agent of a partner; (ii) Whether rules 2 and 6, requiring personal signature by the partner, were ultra vires the rule-making authority and repugnant to the Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882.

Issue (i): Whether the word "personally" in the rules governing applications for registration of a firm excluded signature by a duly authorised agent of a partner.

Analysis: The right to apply for registration under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was held to be a statutory right governed exclusively by the terms of that provision and the rules made under it. The Act was treated as a self-contained code, and the surrounding scheme indicated an intention to depart from the ordinary common-law rule that an act may be done through an agent. On that construction, the requirement that the application be signed personally meant that the partner himself had to sign.

Conclusion: The word "personally" excluded signature by an authorised agent, and the application was invalid if not signed by the partner himself.

Issue (ii): Whether rules 2 and 6, requiring personal signature by the partner, were ultra vires the rule-making authority and repugnant to the Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882.

Analysis: The rules were treated as filling in the details authorised by Section 26A and as having statutory force under Section 59(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882 was held not to confer a general right to act through an agent, but only to validate acts done by an authorised agent in his own name where such authority already exists. As the fields occupied by the two enactments were distinct, there was no conflict and no implied repeal. The Court also held that the legislative delegation question did not arise.

Conclusion: Rules 2 and 6 were intra vires and were not repugnant to the Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882.

Final Conclusion: Registration under Section 26A could be claimed only on strict compliance with the statutory requirements and the prescribed rules, and a partner's application signed by an agent did not satisfy that requirement.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal statute and its rules make personal signature a condition of a statutory benefit, the entitlement must be claimed strictly in accordance with the statute, and the ordinary law of agency will not be imported to defeat that statutory scheme.

---