Cwt Vs. V.M. Rao

.....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.....orderr. jayasimha babu, j.the matter in issue is valuation of shares in a private company. the tribunal rendered its decision at a time when it did not have the benefit of the decision of the supreme court in the case of bharat hari singhania v. cwt : [1994]207itr1(sc) in which, it was held that rule 1b (rule 1d) of the wealth tax rules is the sole basis for determining the value of such shares.2. as the order of the tribunal is not consistent with the law laid down by the supreme court, the order of the tribunal cannot be sustained, the valuation made by it is required to be modified to the extent required and to be in conformity with the law laid down by the apex court in the case of bharat hari singhania (supra).3. we, therefore, remit the matters back to the tribunal to re-do the valuation in accordance with rule 1b (rule 1d) of the wealth tax rules.