https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7099 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. en-us Thu, 19 Jan 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 08 Feb 2009 12:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7099 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 19 Jan 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7099