1950 (5) TMI 3 - SC - Income Tax

Personal Signature Required: Son's Signature Invalid. Assessee Must Sign. Legal Procedures Emphasized.

Commissioner Of Agricultural Income-Tax, West Bengal Versus Sri Keshab Chandra Mandal

Commissioner Of Agricultural Income-Tax, West Bengal Versus Sri Keshab Chandra Mandal - [1950] 18 ITR 569, 1950 AIR 265, 1950 (0) SCR 435 Issues Involved:1. Validity of the return signed by the assessee's son.2. Interpretation of statutory requirements for personal signatures.3. Application of common law rule regarding signatures by agents.4. Procedural propriety of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer's actions.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the return signed by the assessee's son:The primary issue was whether the declaration in the form of return signed by the illiterate assessee by the pen of his son should be treated as properly signed and a valid return. The High Court had answered this question in the affirmative, relying on the common law rule that a signature by an agent is valid unless the statute expressly requires a personal signature. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, noting that there was no physical contact between the assessee and the signature on the return, and emphasizing the need for personal signature or mark by the assessee.2. Interpretation of statutory requirements for personal signatures:The Supreme Court examined the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944, and its rules to determine whether the common law rule could be applied. The Court found several indications that the Legislature intended to exclude the common law rule and require personal signatures. These included the specific mention of personal signatures in various sections and rules, the omission of a definition of 'sign' to include signatures by agents, and the requirement for personal attendance and production of evidence by the assessee.3. Application of common law rule regarding signatures by agents:The Court referred to judicial decisions where personal signature was deemed indispensable, such as Monks v. Jackson and The Queen v. Mansel Jones. The Court concluded that the common law rule qui facit per alium facit per se (he who acts through another acts himself) does not apply when the statute indicates an intention to exclude it. The Court found that the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act and its rules required personal signatures by the assessee, thus excluding the common law rule.4. Procedural propriety of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer's actions:The Court noted that the Agricultural Income-tax Officer proceeded with the assessment without giving the assessee a further opportunity to put his mark on the return. The Court emphasized that it was not concerned with the propriety of this action in this appeal. However, the Court highlighted that the Officer should have called upon the assessee to appear and ascertain the circumstances of the signature before rejecting the return.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, answering the question referred to the High Court in the negative. The Court held that the return signed by the assessee's son was not a valid return as there was no physical contact between the assessee and the signature. The Court emphasized the necessity of personal signatures or marks by the assessee, as indicated by the statutory provisions and rules. The Court also highlighted the need for Income-tax Officers to act sympathetically towards illiterate assessees and ensure proper procedures are followed before rejecting returns.