.....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.....k. raviraja pandian, j.this appeal has been filed against the order of the income tax appellate tribunal, madras 'a' bench, in its order dated 23-11-1998 made in i.t.a. no. 680 (mad) of 1990.2. the question of law raised in the appeal is as follows'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal is correct in law in allowing the deduction of rs. 7,00,435 as revenue expenditure ?'3. the assessment year involved is 1985-86. in a similar set of facts, in the assessee's own case, in respect of the assessment year 1988-89 in t.c. no. 47 of 1998 this court has remitted the matter back to the tribunal on the ground that there was no materials produced as regards the moderanisation expenditure, expenditure on current repairs and replacement of worn out parts as contended by the assessee were made out in accordance with the instructions given by the director of handlooms. the assessee might be given an opportunity to place those instructions which had not been placed before the tribunal. the tribunal was directed to redetermine the issue after giving opportunity to the assessee. following the earlier orders made by this court for that assessment year, we remit this case also to the appellate tribunal for reconsidering the issue on the basis of materials if any produced by the assessee. accordingly, the order of the appellate tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the tribunal for reconsidering the issue in terms of the order passed in t.c. no. 47 of 1998, dated 7-10-2002 by this court.