BHURAMAL PALURAM Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the assessee is a partnership firm consisting of two partners, Bhuramal Tewari and Paluram Agarwal, having equal shares. The partnership was registered under Section 26A of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1945-46, 1946-47 and 1947-48. For the assessment year 1948-49, the partnership firm filed an application for renewal of the registration. The application was made on 8-9-1948. Together with the application the assessee. produced a partnership deed dated 29-7-1944. The application was signed . by one of the partners Paluram. The other partner Bhuramal did not sign the application personally but one Surajmal signed on his behalf. On 31-7-1949, a second application was filed on behalf of the assessee firm, The application was accom-pained by another partnership deed dated 29-6-1949. This time the application was signed by Paluram and also by one Jutaram who held a power of attorney from Bhuramal. The application was rejected by the Income-tax Officer who refused registration on three grounds, one of which was that Bhuramal did not personally sign the application. An appeal was taken on behalf of the assessee to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appeal was allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Officer was directed to register the firm. The Department preferred an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal who allowed the appeal taking the view that the assessee firm was not entitled to registration under Section 26A as Bhuramal did not sign personally the application form.

(2.) In this state of facts the Appellate Tribunal has submitted the following questions of law for the opinion of the High Court;

(3.) As regards the first question Mr. Dutt on behalf of the assessee put forward the "argument that Rules 2 and 6, Income-tax Rules were repugnant to the Powers-of-Attorney Act and, therefore, these rules were in excess of the statutory power conferred on the Central Board of Revenue and should be held to be "ultra vires'. Learned counsel pointed out that Section 26A of the Act does not itself provide that the application for registration of the partnership firm must be signed personally by each of the individual partners. Learned counsel referred to Section 26-A which is in the following terms: