Cit Vs. S. Sennimalai

.....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.....n.v. balasubramanian, j.the income tax appellate tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law:'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the commissioner (appeals) cancelling the assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147 in the assessee's case especially since he has rightly invoked the provisions of section 147(b)since the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and since the assessee himself had consented to treat the return filed on 3-6-1982 as the return filed in response to notice under section 148 ?'2. the assessment year involved is 1982-83.3. mrs. pushya sitharaman, learned senior standing counsel for the revenue fairly submits that the issues raised in the question is covered against the revenue by the decision of the supreme court in trustees of h.e.h. the nizam's supplemental family trust v. cit (2000) 242 itr 381. following the said decision of the supreme court, we answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative, against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.