.....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.....v.s. sirpurkar, j.the question referred for our consideration is :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in holding that the pension received by the assessee from the malaysian government could not be assessed as salary under the income tax act, 1961 ?'2. the question is referred at the instance of the revenue. the tribunal in its order relying on articles 18(3) and 18(5) of the agreement for avoidance of double taxation of income entered into between the government of india and government of malaysia, has held that the pension received was not taxable in india, since it was liable for tax in malaysia, which was the contracting state. there will be no question of its inviting the taxation in india, which would amount to double taxation. the tribunal has pointed out that the university of malaysia is a statutory authority and as such, would fall within the term 'government' and, therefore, the pension paid by the university of malaysia, as in the present case, would have to be construed for the purpose of the agreement as pension received from the government, which is taxable in terms of article 18(3) in malaysia by government of malaysia. we do not find anything wrong in the order and it is absolutely correct and we confirm the same. the question is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee, and against the revenue. no costs.