A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Agricultural Income-Tax, Bengal v. Sri Keshab Chandra Mandal centers around the legal validity of a return filed under the Bengal Agricultural Income-Tax Act, 1944, particularly when an illiterate assessee’s signature was affixed using the pen of his son. The crux of the matter revolves around the interpretation of the statutory requirement of “personal signature” and whether the common law principle of agency—qui facit per alium facit per se—can override express statutory mandates.

The case raises a nuanced question: whether a declaration in the return, signed using the pen of the assessee’s son (but not physically by the assessee), can be considered a valid signature under the law. The majority opinion (Fazl Ali, Patanjali Sastri, Mukherjea, and Das, JJ.) ruled in favor of strict compliance, holding that the statutory framework required direct physical contact or mark by the assessee himself, and excluded application of agency principles. Mahajan J., dissenting, argued for a broader, practical approach, emphasizing that absent evidence of non-contact, such a signature should not be disqualified.

The Court reversed the Calcutta High Court’s decision, which had validated the return. This judgment is a landmark in interpreting the sanctity of procedural compliance vis-à-vis agency in income-tax jurisprudence, and emphasizes the limits of implied agency under fiscal legislation.

Keywords: Signature by Agent, Illiterate Assessee, Agricultural Income Tax, Qui facit per alium facit per se, Personal Signature Requirement

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Commissioner of Agricultural Income-Tax, Bengal v. Sri Keshab Chandra Mandal

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal No. LXXXVIII of 1949

iii) Judgement Date:
9th May 1950

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
SAIYID FAZL ALI, PATANJALI SASTRI, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, B.K. MUKHERJEA, and S.R. DAS, JJ.

vi) Author:
Justice Das (Majority), Justice Mahajan (Dissenting)

vii) Citation:
AIR 1950 SC 265; (1950) SCR 435

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 24, 25, 35, 41, 57, 60 & 63 of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944

• Rule 11 of Bengal Agricultural Income-Tax Rules, 1944

• Form No. 5

• Relevant definitions under the Bengal General Clauses Act

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
None expressly overruled but Calcutta High Court Judgment (16th Sept 1948) was reversed.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Taxation Law, Procedural Law, Interpretation of Statutes, Administrative Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case stems from procedural ambiguity under the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944, in determining whether returns submitted by illiterate assessees without direct manual signature meet legal validity. The background lies in a broader context—illiterate taxpayers depending on agents, clerks, or relatives to comply with complex tax obligations. Here, the respondent, Sri Keshab Chandra Mandal, was an illiterate farmer who submitted his income-tax return via his son’s pen, with no conclusive evidence of the assessee having made direct physical contact with the pen or signature.

The Agricultural Income-tax Officer rejected the return as invalid. The Tribunal and the High Court validated it, invoking the principle qui facit per alium facit per se. However, the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-Tax appealed to the Supreme Court, leading to a vital legal debate—whether such procedural acts by proxies could fulfill personal statutory obligations under tax law.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

• A notice under Section 24(2) was served to Keshab Chandra Mandal to submit his return.

• He filed a return declaring an agricultural income of Rs. 335 dated 3rd April 1945, “signed” in vernacular by the pen of his son Jugal Chandra Mandal.

• A second return dated 7th May 1945 was submitted declaring Rs. 1,077, again signed by his son.

• On both occasions, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer found discrepancies and no proper signature or authorisation.

• The Officer disregarded both returns and assessed an income of Rs. 4,968, resulting in tax liability.

• Appeals ensued: First rejected by Assistant Commissioner, then allowed by the Appellate Tribunal.

• The Commissioner then referred the matter to the High Court under Section 63(1). The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee.

• Finally, the Commissioner appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the return lacked a valid signature under Rule 11 and Form No. 5.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether a return signed with the pen of the assessee’s son, without physical contact or written authorisation, constitutes a “proper signature” under the Bengal Agricultural Income-Tax Act, 1944 and Rule 11?

ii. Whether the common law principle qui facit per alium facit per se applies to procedural requirements under fiscal statutes, especially where the statute prescribes personal acts?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:

The statutory framework explicitly requires personal compliance. They contended that Rule 11 of the Rules framed under Section 57, along with Form No. 5, mandates the declaration to be signed by the individual himself. The language “by the individual himself” was critical. They relied on the absence of statutory language permitting agent signatures unlike other provisions of the Act which expressly allow agency for certain acts like producing evidence or attending hearings [1].

They further asserted that allowing agent-signed returns would render other procedural safeguards meaningless, including those under Sections 25, 35, 41, and 58, which differentiate between acts performable by agents and those strictly reserved for the assessee [2].

The petitioner relied on precedents including In re Prince Blucher, (1931) 2 Ch. 70, and Monks v. Jackson, L.R. 1 C.P.D. 683, where personal acts were held to be non-delegable under statute [3]. These cases emphasized that where a statute intends a personal act, agent-substitution is impermissible.

They argued that the lack of a written authority from the assessee to the son further voided the return. Thus, both returns were invalid, and the assessment made ignoring them was lawful [4].

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

The High Court and Tribunal were correct in applying the common law doctrine qui facit per alium facit per se (he who acts through another acts himself) [5]. Since the assessee was illiterate, practical constraints required assistance. The son’s act of signing on behalf of the father was not unauthorised—it was tacitly allowed and in accordance with long-standing practice in rural India.

They pointed to the absence of any definition of “signature” under the Act. They argued that under the Bengal General Clauses Act, “signature” includes “mark”, which may be affixed by guiding someone else’s hand [6].

Justice Mahajan, in dissent, emphasized that unless it is conclusively proven that the assessee did not touch the pen or hand of his son, the return must be presumed valid. He relied on practical realities, and on the absence of any positive proof of invalid execution by the assessee [7].

They also pointed out that the officer failed to inquire further and instead rushed to penal assessment. Procedural fairness demanded another opportunity to cure the technical defect.