.....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 to us at the instance of the assessee is as follows :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the gross sales proceeds with reference to sale of shares held by the assessee in anglo french textiles ltd. and best & co. (pondicherry) (p) ltd., are to be taken into consideration for computing capital gains ?'2. when the matter came before us initially, we found that the assessee was not on record as probably he was not served. we, therefore, directed the registry to serve notice on the assessee by registered post with acknowledgement due. he was, accordingly, served on 12-7-2002. however, when the matter is called out today, there is no representation on the part of the assessee. this is besides the point that even the vakalat and typedsets have not been filed by him. probably, this is because, the matter is fully covered against the assessee as per the statement made by the learned senior standing counsel for the department who relies on the decision in the case of venkatesh (minor) v. cit : [2000]243itr367(mad) which is a case in respect of the assessee of the same group. this is not contested by the assessee as nobody is present on behalf of the assessee. we, therefore, proceed ex parte against the assessee and hold in favour of the revenue. the question is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee relying on the aforementioned judgment. no costs.