Fenner (India) Ltd. Vs. Cit

.....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.....orderv.s. sirpurkar, j.the questions which are referred in these two tax cases are as follows :t.c. no. 695 of 1996 :'1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the interest paid under section 220(2) of the act is not an allowable deduction against the profit of the company 2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the proportionate amount of cash compensatory support on exports attributable to the new industrial undertaking did not qualify for the relief under section 80hh 3. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the gratuity paid to directors is to be included in remuneration for the purpose of computing expenditure under section 40c ?'t. c. no. 696 of 1996 :'4. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the interest income and sale proceeds of processed waste attributable to the new industrial undertaking did not qualify for the relief under section 80hh ?'2. mr. janarthana raja, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee, states that the first question is covered against the assessee by the judgment in assessee's own case in fenner (india) ltd. v. cit : [1997]223itr738(mad) . he submits that the second question is also covered against the assessee vide judgment in the assessee's own case in fenner (india) ltd. v. cit : [1999]239itr480(mad) . according to the learned counsel, even the fourth question is covered against the assessee, again by judgment in assessee.'s own case in fenner (india) ltd. v. cit : [2000]241itr803(mad) . according to the learned counsel, all these three questions can be answered against the assessee on the basis of these decisions. the department does not controvert the same. hence, these questions are answered against the assessee.3. however, insofar as the third question is concerned, according to mr,.....