Cit Vs. Essen (P) Ltd.

.....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 common question referred to at the instance of the revenue is as under :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of section 80m of the income tax act, 1961, the appellate tribunal is justified in holding that the reopening of the assessment for the year 1971-72/1972-73 is invalid in law and accordingly in cancelling the reassessment made under section 147(b)?'2. finding that inspite of the pendency of the reference proceedings for over 10 years, the assessee was not before us, we had directed the department to serve the assessee again by a private notice. accordingly, the department had tried to serve the assessee on the address given in the assessment order, i.e., no. 3, cathedral road, madras. however today, the learned senior standing counsel for the department reports that the assessee was not to be found there. it is obvious, therefore, that the assessee who has moved from that address has not bothered to inform the department or this court about the change of his address. references are registered in 1987 and yet, till today, the assessee has not taken steps either to come before this court or to inform the changed address, if any, to the department, which, he was bound to do. in that view, we choose to proceed ex parte against the assessee.3. the learned senior standing counsel points out that the tribunal had proceeded on the basis of the earlier law in the case of cloth traders (p) ltd. v. addl. cit : [1979]118itr243(sc) . however, this case seems to have been overruled in another decision of the supreme court in the case of distributors (baroda) (p) ltd. v. union of india : [1985]155itr120(sc) . here, the supreme court has specifically held that the said decision in the case of cloth traders (p) ltd. (supra) was erroneously decided and it has chosen to overrule the same. we have seen that in the decision, the tribunal has entirely relied on the law declared in the case of.....