Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX, BENGAL versus SRI KESHAB CHANDRA MANDAL

Decided
9 May 1950
Judges listed
M. PATANJALI SASTRI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1950] 1 S.C.R. 435 · 1950 INSC 11
Also cited as
  • AIR 1950 SC 265 (6 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 6 other Supreme Court judgments we hold. The 5 most recent:

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Au J.-I agree.

p. 450

J.-I agree.

p. 450

J.-I agree.

p. 450

J.-The question of law referred to the High Court and answered by it in the affirmative is in these terms :-" Whether in the circumstances of this case, the declaration in the form of return signed by the illiterate assessee by the pen of his son should be treated as properly signed and a valid return." The Hi;;h Court was not called upon to answer the question whether an income-tax return could be validly signed by an agent in the name of the principal ; on the other -hand, the question as framed assumes that the return was signed by the illiterate assessee but that the pen affixing the signature was that of his son. The physical act of putting the mark was made by the pen or possibly by the hand of the son who was not the agent appointed by the father and was not otherwise authorised by him to sign for him.

p. 450

No evidence was led and there is nothing whatsoever on the record to establish that this illiterate assessee did not touch the pen or the hand of the son when the signature was affixed on the return. No precise definition of the word " signature" is given in the Indian Income-tax Act or in any other law. In the General Clauses Act there is no exhaustive definition of the word. It merely says what the word "signature" shall include. It includes the affixing of a mark. In India it is a well known practice that when the executant of a document is illiterate he simply touches the pen wherewith someone else signs his name for him. Reference in this connection may be made to page 972, para. 1659, of Gour on The Law of Transfer. The signature niade in these circumstances is personal signature of the executant. It is his autograph. No question of agency arises in such a situation. This is what seems to have happened here as one can guess from the frame of the question. Be that as it may, without any enquiry into the circumstances in which the pen of the son affixed the signature of the assessee on the return it could not be assumed that the son acted as the agent of the father and signed his name in that capacity. In my opinion the discussion of the question whether an agent can sign a return for an assessee was outside the scope of the question which the High Court was called upon to answer. The answer given in my view was a correct one.

p. 451

After considerable thought I am disinclined to reverse the decision of the High Court by placing an interpretation on the question which it does not bear. In an ex parte hearing we had not the advantage of hearing any arguments in support of the view taken by the High Court as the respondent did not appear. It is unnecessary to express any opinion on the question whether an agent can sign for the principal a form of return under the Indian Income-tax Act as that enquiry is outside the scope of the question referred to the High Court as already pointed out.

p. 451

In the absence of any material to the contrary I am satisfied that the assessee signed the return 5~ personally. If the Income-tax Officer felt that the assessee had not touched the pen or the hand of the person who put the signature on the return he should have called upon the assessee to appear before him and ascertain from him the circumstances in which the son's pen was used for the signature. In In the matter of Commissioner of Income-tax, C.P. & U.P.('), it was observed that it is the duty of the Income-tax Officer before he accepts a return signed by an agent to satisfy himself about the authority of the agent to do so. In my opinion, it is equally the duty of an Income-tax Officer before he rejects a return of an illiterate assessee or a person such as a leper, to satisfy himself that there was no physical contact of the person with the mark or the signature put on the form. I agree with my brother Das that there should be physical contact between the person and the signature or the mark put on the document, but I am afraid I cannot agree with him that in this case that has not happened. The question to a certain extent assumes the contact of the assessee with the pen of his son when it states . that the illiterate assessee's signature was put with the pen of the son. Be that as it may, that circumstance has not been eliminate<! in the case and that being so, the question cannot be answered in the manner proposed by my learned brother. I am further of the opinion that the ~ncome­ tax Officers should not while administering the law create unnecessary problems for the Courts. In the present case if there was any doubt in the mind of the Income-tax Officer, he should have ca,lled upon the illiterate assessee to put his m·ark in his presence on the return and he should not have acted hastily in assessing him under t_he penal provisions of the Act. Ignorant and illiterate people who are not well versed with the law of income-tax should be dealt with more sympathetically than was done here. They should not be penalised in the manner that the present assessee was penalised. In the result I would dismiss this appeal.

pp. 451–452

Appeal allowed. Agent for appellant: P. K. Bose.

p. 452