Cwt Vs. L. Dorairaj

.....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.the income tax appellate tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law in relation to the assessment years 1974-75 & 1975-76 for our consideration.'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in law in deleting the additional wealth tax charged on urban properties when the ownership of the properties vests with the appellant?'2. mr. philip george undertakes to file vakalat for the respondent.3. mrs. pushya sitharaman, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the revenue fairly submitted that the issue raised in the question is covered against the revenue by the decision of this court in cwt v. c. g. radhakrishnan : [1994]210itr1016(mad) . it is relevant to notice that the full bench of the karnataka high court in cwt v. d.m. srinivas : [2001]248itr406(kar) has followed the view taken by this court in c.g. radhakrishnan's case (supra) and held as under :'...therefore, while computing the net wealth of the assessee owning the urban asset, the business premises in which the business is carried on by the firm, of which he is a partner, shall have to be excluded since there is nothing to show in the definition of the words business premises in rule 1 of para b of the schedule that the benefit of the provisions would not be available, if the business premises owned by the assessee are utilised by the firm of which the assessee is a partner for its business purposes...' (p. 414)4. following the decision of this court in c.g. radhakrishnan's case (supra) and the full bench judgment of the karnataka high court in d.m. srinivas' case (supra), we hold that the income tax appellate tribunal was correct in deleting the additional wealth-tax charged on urban properties, when the ownership of the properties vests with the assessee.5. accordingly, the question of law referred to us is answered in the affirmative against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. no costs.