The reference was heard by Satyanarayana Rao and Viswanatha Sastry, JJ.
Satyanarayana Rao, J. held that the rules were ultra vires, and that the applications were in order, and ought to have been granted.
The Income tax Officer overruled both these companytentions, and rejected the applications, and his orders were companyfirmed on appeal by the Appellate Assistant companymissioner and then by the Appellate Tribunal.
Vide Commissioner of Income tax v. Subba Rao 1 .
While these proceedings were pending, Hariprasada Rao filed the two applications, out of which the present appeals arise, for renewal of the registration certificate for the assessment years 1943 44 and 1944 45.
At the hearing of these petitions the appellant, apart from maintaining that rules 2 and 6 did number, on their true companystruction, exclude signature by an agent on behalf of a partner, raised a further companytention that the rules themselves were ultra vires the powers of the rulemaking authority.
56 57 of 1954.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated the 25th day v of March 1951 of the Madras High Court in Case Referred Nos.
Thereafter, on the application of the appellant, the Tribunal referred the following questions for the decision of the High Court Whether the word personally in the Income tax Rules, as framed under section 59 of the Income tax Act would exclude a duly authorised agent of a partner from signing an application on behalf of the partner under section 26 A of the Income tax Act?
Following the decision in Commissioner of Income tax v. Subba Rao 1 , they answered the first question in the affirmative.
32 of 1948 and 31 of 1950.
Both of them were signed by him for himself and as attorney for Subba Rao.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The Income tax Officer rejected the application for renewal on the ground that it was number personally signed by one of the partners, Subba Rao, and that the signature of Hariprasada Rao as his agent was number valid The order was taken in appeal, and was ultimately the subject of a reference under section 66 1 of the Act to the High Court of Madras, which held that the word personally in rule 6 required that the partner should himself sign the application, and that the principles of agency under the general law were exclude.
Those rules provide that an application for registration of a firm under section 26 A and for renewal of registration certificate shall be signed personally by all the partners.
rejected as number being in accordance with them.
On 21 3 1942 it was registered under section 26 A of the Indian IncomeTax Act No.
XI of 1922, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the assessment year 1942.
S. Krishnaswami Iyengar, K. R. Choudhry, with him for the appellants.
N. Joshi and P. G. Gokhale, for, the respondent.
Hariprasada Rao then applied under rules 2 and 6 of the rules framed under section 59 of the Act, for renewal of the registration certificate for the year 1942 43, and the application was signed by him for himself and again as the attorney of Subba Rao.
On the second question, however, they differed.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AYYAR J. The appellant is a firm which was companystituted under a deed of partnership dated 10 2 1941, and companysists of two partners, Subba Rao and Hariprasada Rao.
Sometime thereafter, one of the partners, Subba Rao, is stated to have left on a long pilgrimage, and the affairs of the partnership were then managed by Hariprasada Rao as his agent under a general power of attorney dated 1 7 1940.
May 9.
