Cit Vs. Thangamaligai

.....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.....ordern.v. balasubramanian, j.at the instance of the revenue, a common question of law has been referred to us in relation to the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 of the assessee and the question reads as under :'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in law in holding that the chit investment/gifts to chit subscribers would not constitute sales/business promotion expenditure and is outside the scope of the provisions of section 37(3a) of the act ?'2. the issue that arises for consideration is whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee by way of presenting the gift articles to the subscribers of chit at the time of joining the scheme and at the time of conclusion of the chit would amount to sales promotion expenses. a similar question was considered by this court for the earlier assessment year in the case of same assessee and this court by its order in t.c. no. 1216 of 1987 dated 29-4-1999 held that the expenditure would be of sales promotion expenditure and subject to the ceiling under section 37(3a) of the income tax act.3. the learned counsel for the revenue submits that the above decision covers the facts of this case. learned counsel for the assessee also submits the same. accordingly, following the said decision and for the reasons stated therein, we answer the common question of law referred to us in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. no costs.