Simpson and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax

.....had been granted to a person under the relevant provisions of the act, then to set right that mistake, the director should be enabled to exercise his power so as to effectuate the scheme of the act and to implement the purpose behind the act. the fact that the rule making authority has prescribed procedure in exercise of the powers under section 67 for making an application to the director does not mean that the suo motu power which is explicit in section 5(2) of the act is in any way curtailed or taken away. therefore, the contention of the respondent that making an application is sine qua non for invoking the power under section 5(2) of the act is not tenable. -- t.n. estates (abolition & conversion into ryotwari) act, 1948. sections 5(2) & 67; suo motu revisional powers held, on a bare reading of the provisions of section 5(2) of the act, it is clear that the power conferred on the director by section 5(2) to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of the settlement officer is very wide. in the first place, the director need not necessarily be moved by any party in that behalf, and the power could be exercised either on an application by an aggrieved person or suo motu. for example, if the director comes to know that contrary to the scheme of the act or due to misrepresentation or fraud played, a patta had been granted to a person under the relevant provisions of the act, then to set right that mistake, the director should be enabled to exercise his power so as to effectuate the scheme of the act and to implement the purpose behind the act. the fact that the rule making authority has prescribed procedure in exercise of the powers under section 67 for making an application to the director does not mean that the suo motu power which is explicit in section 5(2) of the act is in any way curtailed or taken away. therefore, the contention of the respondent that making an application is sine qua non for invoking the power under section 5(2) of..........the tax case petition no. 832 of 1997 (simpson and co. ltd. v. cwt : [2000]241itr620(mad) ) on the ground that no question of law arose out of the order of the income-tax appellate tribunal and the questions sought for are purely questions of fact. the assessment year involved is 1988-89 and the order was passed on june 25, 1998.2. it is brought to the notice of this court now that in t. c ps. nos. 374 to 377 of 1996 by an order dated august 7, 1997, this court has directed the tribunal to state the case and refer a similar question of law in respect of the very same assessee. it is also brought to the notice of this court in t. c. ps. nos. 285 and 286 of 1997 by an order dated november 12, 1997 ; in t. c ps. nos. 408 and 409 of 1997 by an order dated march 31, 1998, and in t. c. ps. nos. 77 and 78 of 1999 by an order dated october 29, 1997 in which one of us (nvbj) was a party, has directed the tribunal to state a case and refer similar questions of law for different assessment years for the same assessee.3. mr. p. p. s. janardhana raja, learned counsel for the assessee, submits that these orders were not brought to the notice of the court when the court decided the tax case petition no. 832 of 1997 due to inadvertence. learned counsel for the revenue also fairly submits that the order passed dismissing the tax case petition be set aside.4. we feel that when this court has called for reference prior to our order dismissing the petition, we would have called for the reference, had the earlier orders of this court been brought to the attention of the court. it is stated that it was due to the mistake on the part of counsel for the assessee, the earlier orders were not brought to our attention when we disposed of the tax case petition. we are of the view that when there are several orders, both prior to and subsequent to our order, calling for reference, our earlier order dismissing the tax case petition, at least to maintain consistency in the interest of.....