.....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.....orderk. raviraja pandian, j.the question referred is,'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
income tax appellate tribunal was right
in law in holding that the increase in the credit balance in the deposit on containers account should not be regarded as partaking the character of the trading receipts of the assessee ?'the
assessment year is 1987-88.2. the assessee is a company
engaged in the manufacture of soft drinks in the name of torino. in the assessment proceedings, the
assessing officer found that there was increase in the
security deposit in respect of bottles and crates, and the assessee also has claimed depreciation
in respect of those bottles and crates and on that score, the
assessing officer treated the receipt as a trade receipt.3. on appeal, the commissioner of appeals confirmed the same. however, the tribunal rejected the views taken by the
assessing officer and following the earlier decision of the assessees own case has accepted the contention of the assessees. hence, the assessment now
referred to.4. the question similar to the one of the present case has been considered by this court in the case of cit v. madurai soft drinks (p) ltd. : [2000]241itr229(mad) and this court held that the deposit so
received by the assessee required to be returned as and when the bottles were returned and the finding of the tribunal that such deposit did not constitute the income of the assessee as correct, and thereby answered the question in favour of the assessee, and against the revenue.5. following the decision as stated above, the question referred to us in the present case is also answered in favour of the assessee, and against the revenue.