.....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 question referred is as under :'on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the tribunal is correct in allowing depreciation on exchange fluctuation relating to the assessment year 1979-80 ?'2. the question referred is already decided subsequently by the various decisions including that of the supreme court. in our opinion, therefore, the tribunal was right in giving the benefit of section 43a of the income tax act, 1961 in favour of the assessee. it has not been disputed before us that the value of the assets acquired from outside india with foreign exchange suffered a modification in their value, as a result of the fluctuation in the foreign exchange between the rate determined by the government and the actual rates. the tribunal, in our view, has correctly held that the increased liability would go to increase the cost of the asset. the tribunal has also correctly held that the difference has arisen due to the re-fixation of the value of the foreign currency to indian rupee by the government of india and has eventually correctly held that the appellant would be entitled to the depreciation of rs. 5,38,192. in that view, we are of the opinion that the tribunal's order is correct and needs no interference. accordingly, the question referred is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. no costs.