Cit Vs. Viners Industries

.....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.in pursuance of the directions of this court, the income tax appellate tribunal has stated a 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 holding that the income of the trust should not be assessed in the status of association of persons?'2. the assessment years involved are 1985-86 to 1989-90.3. learned counsel appearing for the revenue in his fairness submits that the issue raised in the common questions is covered against the revenue by the decision of this court in cit v. venu suresh sheela trust : [1998]233itr99(mad) . we are of the view that it is a case of a trust and the shares of the beneficiaries are specified and known and, therefore, it cannot be assessed as association of persons under the provisions of section 161 and 161(1a) of the income tax act. we have also taken a similar view in t.c. nos. 210 and 211 of 1998 [cit v. m/s. mecca trust] dated 29-10-2002 holding that the assessee was not liable to be assessed in the status of association of persons. following the said decisions, we answer the common question of law referred to us for several assessment years against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.