MANCHANDA, J. - (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. The question that can be said to arise is : Whether the Board was justified in refusing to entertain the revision on the ground that the application was not signed by the minor assessee or his guardian but only by the Mukhtaram appointed by the guardian ? The material facts lie within a narrow compass and are these : The assessee was a minor and his father, Ram Lal, was his guardian. The latter executed a Mukhtarnama in favour of Girja Shanker and that Mukhtarnama gave very wide powers to the Mukhtar including the power to sign to memo of appeal and applications. Against the assessment order for the relevant assessment year Girja Shanker as Mukhtaram filed an appeal to the Collector-in-charge under section 16 of the Act. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the memorandum of appeal was not verified and signed by the guardian of the assessee, Ram Lal, but only by the Mukhtaram and as such the provisions of section 21(4) read with rule 25 had not been complied with. Against the dismissal of the appeal a revision was field again under the signature of the Mukhtaram. Bhawani Shanker. A preliminary objection was taken at the time of the admission of the appeal. The Board of Revenue, on the analogy of the provisions of section 21 and rule 25 which related to appeals, upheld the preliminary objection holding that the revision was not validly presented and ordered it to be returned to the signatory thereof. In others words, the Board refused to entertain the revision filed by the Mukhtar. An application under section 24(2) having been dismissed on the ground that no question of law arose, this court upon being moved under section 24(4) directed the Board to state a case. That is how the matter is before 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 : Every appeal under this section shall be presented in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner. Rule 25 reads : (1) An appeal under section 2 to the Commissioner or Additional Commissioner may be filed within 35 days of the order appealed against and shall be in the case of an order under section 6 in form A. I. T. 6. ... and the same shall be verified in the manner indicated therein... (2) (ii) On receiving such memorandum of appeal the Collector shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and the name of the party, or his duly authorized agent in writing in that behalf presenting it and remit the appeal within a week of such presentation to the Commissioner or Additional Commissioner. Paragraph 6 of A. I. T. form VI requires : A concise statement of the facts on which the petitioner relies for the purpose of this appeal is attached herewith. ;