Cwt Vs. Anup Kumar

.....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 direction of this court, the income tax appellate tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law for consideration under section 27(1) of the wealth tax act, 1957 :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in law in holding that the market value of the shares held by the assessee in a company in which the public are substantially interested and the shares of which are also quoted in a recognised stock exchange can be fixed at a rate lower than the rate quoted in the stock exchange?'2. the assessment year involved is 1989-90. the assessee is an individual holding certain shares in solidaire india limited. the shares are also quoted in stock exchange and the issue that arises is regarding the mode of valuation of the shares, which are quoted in the stock exchange. the appellate tribunal followed an earlier order in the case of a.s. ananth (w.t.a. no. 542 (mad) of 1991, dated 18-5-1994) to take the view that it will not be proper to value the shares at the price quoted in the stock exchange, though shares were quoted in stock exchange.3. we find that the order of the appellate tribunal rendered in the case of a.s. ananth (supra) was subject-matter for consideration before this court in (t.c. no. 46 of 1998) cwt v. a.s. ananth (one of us was a party to the judgment), wherein this court by judgment dated 7-10-2002 did not agree with the view expressed by the tribunal and held that the valuation of the shares has necessarily to be made in the manner provided in the statute, and the value of the shares has to be determined at the price quoted in the stock exchange at the relevant valuation date. the learned counsel for the assessee in his fairness has submitted that the decision of this court in t.c. no. 46 of 1998 dated 7-10-2002 would apply to the facts of this case as well.accordingly, following the said decision and for the reasons stated therein,.....