Judgment 1. In this case the petitioner, Suraj-mull Ghattani, has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution for the purpose of calling up and quashing an order of the Income-tax Officer, Purnea, dated the 2nd November, 1955, refusing to permit the petitioner to practise before the Income-tax authorities under Sec. 61 of the Indian Income-tax Act. 2. The order of the Income-tax Officer of Purnea is to the following effect :- - "Government of India Office of the Income-tax Officer, Purnea No. 1813 Dated, Purnea, the 2nd November, 1955. To Sri Surajmal Ghattani, Kishunganj. Subject :- - Petition for being enrolled as Income-tax practitioner -- Section 61 of the Indian Income-tax Act Sir, Please refer to your application dated 1-9-55. I am directed to say that since you did not appear as an authorised representative on behalf of any assessee as required under Section 61, you cannot be authorised to practise as Income-tax practitioner. Yours faithfully, Sd. B. B. Khare, Income-tax Officer, Purnea." 3. It is argued on behalf of the Petitioner that he had attended before the Income-tax authorities on behalf of assessees before the 1st of April, 1938, in some cases and, therefore, the petitioner was an Income-tax practitioner within the meaning of Sec. 61, Sub-section (2), Clause (iv), of the Indian Income-tax Act and was entitled to practise under the Sec. 61 (1) before any income-tax authority, and the order passed by the Income-tax Officer of Purnea, on the 2nd of November, 1955, is illegal and ultra vires and without jurisdiction In support of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner copies of two letters have been filed--one dated the 7th of September, 1955, from Chan-chal Prasad saying that he had engaged the petitioner in the year 1937 to represent him before the Income-tax Officer for examination of accounts and the other dated the 6th September, 1955, from one Abde Ali, saying that the petitioner had been engaged by him for the purpose of his case before the Income-tax Department in the year 1937-33 on the 5th of October, 1937. 4. In our opinion, the argument of the petitioner cannot be accepted as correct and the two letters from Chanchal Prasad and Abde Ali do not support his case. The argument of Mr. 4. In our opinion, the argument of the petitioner cannot be accepted as correct and the two letters from Chanchal Prasad and Abde Ali do not support his case. The argument of Mr. Bhabanand Mukherji on behalf of the petitioner is that mere appearance before the Income-tax authorities before the 1st of April, 1938 was sufficient to qualify the petitioner for being considered as an "income-tax practitioner" within the meaning of Sec. 61 (2) (iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act. We think that this argument of learned Counsel is misconceived. It is necessary at this stage to reproduce Sec. 61 (1) and Sec. 61 (2) (iv) of the Act in full. Sec. 61 (1) states :- - "61. (1) Any assessee , who is entitled or required to attend before the appellate Tribunal or any Income-tax authority in connection with any proceeding under this Act otherwise than when re- quired under Sec.37 to attend personally for examination on oath or affirmation, may attend by a person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, being a relative of or a person regularly employed by the assessee, or a lawyer or accountant or Income-tax practitioner, and not being disqualified by or under Sub-section (3)." Section 61 (2) (iv) of the Act goes on to define "Income-tax practitioner" as follows :-- "61. (2) (iv) Income-tax practitioner means : (a) any person who, before the 1st day of April, 1938, in the taxable territories, or before the 1st day of April, 1949, in any of the merged territories, or before the 1st day of April, 1950, in any Part B State other than the state of Jammu and Kashmir, or before the 14th day of May, 1994, in the State of Jammu a.nd Kashmir, attended before an Income-tax authority on behalf of any assessee otherwise than in the capacity of an employee or relative of that assessee; (b) any person who has passed any accountancy examination recognised in this behalf by the Central Board of Revenue; or (c) any person who has acquired such educational qualifications as the Central Board of Revenue may prescribe for this purpose." It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner must prove that he attended before the Income-tax authorities on behalf of any assessee before the 1st of April, 1938, if he was to be considered as an "Income-tax practitioner" within the meaning of Sec. 61 (2) (iv). It is also relevant in this connection to refer to Sec. 61 of the Indian Income-tax Act Of 1922, which is in the following terms :- - "61. Any assessee, who is entitled or required to attend before any income-tax authority in connection with any proceedings, under this Act, may attend either in person or by any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf." It is manifest that Sec. 61 (2) (iv) of the In-dian Income-tax Act of 1939 has to be read in the context and in the background of Sec. 61 of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922. It follows in consequence that the petitioner must furnish some material to show not only that he appeared before the Income-tax authority before 1st April 1938 but also that he was duly authorised by the assessee in writing in this behalf. It is clear that the petitioner has not furnished any such material Or evidence in this case. The two letters of Chanchal pra-sad and Abde Ali do not. show that there was a written authority given to the petitioner to represent before the Income-tax Department. We also examined the records of the income-tax case of 1937 in which the petitioner has claimed to have appeared. These records were produced by the learned Counsel of the Income-tax Department and we do not find from those records that there was any written authority filed by the petitioner on behalf of the assessees. We also refer in this connection to Schedule T. item 48(g), of the Indian Stamp Act (Act II of 1899) wherefrom it is apparent that the power of attorney should bear a stamp of Re. 1/-. We do not find any such stamped power of attorney filed in the record of any of the two cases in which the petitioner has claimed to have appeared On behalf of the assessees in question. In view of these considerations we are satisfied that the order of the Income-tax officer of Purnea dated the 2nd November, 1955, refusing to allow the petitioner to practise as an Income-tax practitioner is a legal order. We cannot accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this order ia vitiated by any illegality. 5 For these reasons we hold that this ap plication fails and is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 50.00.