9911796707
TMI Blog1935 (3) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Raja. The said return was also signed and verified by the same Asghar Husain Khan. The Income Tax Officer of Fyzabad did not accept the return and called upon the assessee to produce his accounts. When the accounts were produced, he found that the return in question did not contain a correct statement of the income, and therefore assessed the Raja on a larger income than that shown in the return. At the same time he issued a notice to the Raja to show cause why a penalty under Section 28 of the Act should not be levied upon him. The Income Tax Officer did not accept the explanations which were given on behalf of the Raja for the omission of certain items of income from the return in question and levied a penalty against him of Bs. 5,000. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 22, Clause (2), must be signed and verified by the assessee himself or can be signed and verified by an authorised agent, it has been objected by the learned Government Advocate that this question was not specifically raised by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax and is not included within the questions referred by him to this Court. The learned Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, maintains that the question is fully covered by the grounds raised by him in his application for reference under Section 66. He further contends that in any case this Court has authority to resettle issues and answer all questions of law, which properly arise out of the order complained of. In view of the opinion which we have formed as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled under Section 22, Clause (2), Income Tax Act, should be regarded as an application or a written statement within the meaning of the terms of the mukhtarnama. It has also been pointed out that when the mukhtar was authorized to file affidavits in support of an application, it should include the authority to file a return of income such as is required by Section 22. We find ourselves unable to accede to the argument. In Jonmenjoy Coondoo v. George Alder Watson (10 Cal. 901), in which case also the question was as regards the interpretation of a power of attorney, their Lordships of the Judicial Committee remarked as follows : "In order to see what was intended by these words, they must be looked at in connexion with the context as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sghar Husain Khan, we are clearly of opinion that it does not give him any authority to sign or verify the return of income for the purposes of assessment of income tax. We are unable to agree with the learned Government Advocate that it can be treated either as an application or as a written statement within the meaning of the mukhtarnama. An application in the sense in which it has been used in the mukhtarnama, in our opinion means a document containing some request to the authority to whom the application is made. The return in question cannot be treated as an application in this sense. It is merely a declaration of the assessee as regards his income. We have also looked into. The prescribed form for such returns. It does not contain any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income tax for the first time in the year 1927-28 and that the return for that year was verified by a mukhtar, Saiyid Hasan Raja. We know noting about the returns filed in the two following years but in 1930-31 the Raja appended his signature to the return under that of his manager, who had verified it. These facts do not show any uniform practice on the part of the assessee. Moreover, as stated before, we have no information as to the return for two years. In any case we do not think that the facts stated above are sufficient to substantiate a plea of estoppel. "Whoever deals with an agent is put on his guard by that very fact, and does so at his risk. It is his right and duty to inquire into and ascertain the nature and extent of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n every act done by him in good faith, which is warranted by any one of those constructions is deemed to have been duly authorized. We think that there is no room for the application of this principle in the present case, because the terms of the mukhtarnama appear to be quite clear and unambiguous. It was also contended that the act of Asghar Husain Khan in filing the return, even though at the inception unauthorized, should be deemed to have subsequently been ratified by the Raja when in compliance to the notice issued by the Income Tax Officer under Section 23 Income Tax Act, he made Asghar Husain Khan appear and produce the accounts, which the Raja had been called upon to produce. When the Raja was called upon to produce his account bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
