Cit Vs. Madurai District Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd.

.....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..........contribution to provident fund, family provident fund, even though the payment was not made within the time specified in the second proviso to section 43b read with explanation below clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 362. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal is correct in law in holding that the expenditure on modernisation of machinery was allowable as deduction, even though the expenditure was incurred in the prior years and the assessee was maintaining the accounts on mercantile basis?3. whether the appellate tribunal is correct in holding that deduction is allowable as the expenses were amortised, when there is no provision in the income tax act for deduction of amortisation of the expenses, which were actually incurred in the earlier years?'the assessment year is 1988-89.2. counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the assessee had huge amount of unabsorbed depreciation and carried over losses and irrespective of the question being answered in favour of the assessee or the revenue, answer to these questions will have no revenue implications. we are not inclined to return the questions only on that ground as the reference had already been made at the instance of the revenue.3. as regards the first question, this court has held in the case of cit v. shri ganapathy mills co. ltd. : [2000]243itr879(mad) that the liabilities such as contribution towards employees' provident fund and family benefit fund paid within the grace period are eligible for deduction. the tribunal shall allow the deduction in respect of such of those payments as have been paid within the grace period. the first question is answered accordingly.4. as regards the modernisation expenditure, expenditure on current repairs and replacement of worn out parts are clearly deductible expenses. the assessee's counsel says that the modernisation expenditure referred to in the question is, in fact, expenditure on such replacement of.....