Authorized agent signatures valid for revision where statute does not require personal verification; refusal to hear was erroneous.

A revision under the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948 could not be rejected merely because it was signed by the minor assessee's duly authorised agent rather than by the assessee or guardian. Section 22 contained no requirement of personal signature or verification, and in the absence of a specific statutory mandate, an authorised agent could validly present the revision. The appeal provisions under section 21(4) and rule 25 were distinguishable and did not control revisional procedure. Refusal to entertain the revision on that ground was legally erroneous and amounted to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested by law.

---

---

Issues: Whether a revision under the U. P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948 could be refused on the ground that it was signed only by the minor assessee's duly authorised agent and not by the assessee or guardian.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 22 authorises the Board to call for the record on its own motion or on an application, and no prescribed form or rule required a revision application to be signed and verified personally by the assessee. In the absence of a specific statutory mandate, a duly authorised agent could act for the assessee. The provisions relating to appeals under section 21(4) and rule 25 were distinguished from the revisional power, and the rejection of the revision as invalidly presented was held to be legally erroneous and a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested by law.

Conclusion: The refusal to entertain the revision was unjustified and the question was answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Unless a statute specifically requires personal signature and verification, an application may validly be made by a duly authorised agent, and a revisional authority cannot refuse to exercise jurisdiction on that mistaken ground.

---