BHAWANI SHANKER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case stated under section 24(4) of the U. P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) NO question has been formulated or referred. That is not proper. It is the duty of the Agricultural Income-tax Revision Board (hereinafter to as the Board) when stating a case, to formulate a question for the opinion of this court.

(3.) THE court of the Board refusing to entertain the revision is manifestly erroneous in law. It is well-settled that unless there is specific provision of law requiring the signatures and verification of the assessed himself the common law rule qui facit per alium facit per se will have to be followed. In other words, what a man can do himself can equally well be done by his duly authorized agent. A vital matter such as the jurisdiction to entertain a revisions on which is governed by law and is not one which lies in the discretion of the Revision Board. THEre may be something to be said for the proposition that an appeal has to be signed and verified by the assessee himself, because of the provisions of section 21(4) read with the rule 25 of the Agricultural Income-tax Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Section 21(4) runs :