Southern Switchgear 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.....r. jayasimha babu, j.the assessment year is 1984-85. the question referred is as to 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal is right in disallowing rs. 13,500 paid to one of the employees of the applicant's company as part of salary by invoking section 40a(5) of the income tax act, 1961 ?2. this court in the case of sundaram clayton ltd. v. cit : [1999]239itr416(mad) has held, following the earlier decision of the supreme court in the case of cit v. mafatlal gangabhai & co. (p) ltd. : [1996]219itr644(sc) , that cash payment like house rent allowance paid to the employees should be treated as salary for the purpose of determining the ceiling, under section 40a of the income tax act, 1961.3. in this case also, the amount paid to the employees is towards the house rent. as the question raised in this case is similar to the one referred to and considered in the decision of this court referred to earlier, the same needs to be answered in favour of the revenue.4. following the law laid down in that judgment, our answer to the question referred to is in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.