Cwt Vs. Smt. N. Kamala

.....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.....orderk. raviraja pandian, j.the question referred to at the instance of the revenue, for our consideration is, 'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of rule 1d of the wealth tax rules, the tribunal's order holding that the order of the commissioner under section 25(2) of the wealth tax act was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and that therefore the order was liable to be set aside is sustainable in law?'. the assessment years are 1981-82 to 1984-85.2. the assessee' is an individual. she held certain unquoted equity shares in a firm. in the assessment of her wealth that was originally completed under section 16(3) of the wealth tax act for the relevant assessment year, the assessee had evaluated those shares on yield basis, which was accepted by the assessing officer. however, the commissioner held that the assessment so made was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. he also held that the unquoted equity shares should be evaluated as per the previsions of rule 1d of the wealth tax rules, and directed the assessing officer to enhance the net wealth of the assessee for the assessment year, after evaluating the unquoted equity shares as per rule 1d of the wealth tax rules. on appeal by the assessee, the tribunal held that the method of evaluation under rule 1d would be applicable only to companies which are under liquidation or winding up and the method of evaluation to be adopted in the case of going concerns is the yield basis. the tribunal accordingly set aside the order of the commissioner, affirming that of the assessing officer. the present reference has been made, at the instance of the revenue, aggrieved against that order of the tribunal.3. question similar to the one referred in this case has already been considered by the apex court and answered in favour of the revenue, in the case of bharat hari singhania v. cwt : [1994]207itr1(sc) wherein it was held.....