Cit Vs. Av. M. Nazimuddin

.....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.in pursuance of the direction of this court in tax case petition no. 454 of 1996, the income tax appellate tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law under section 256(2) of the income tax act, 1961, in relation to the assessment year 1984-85.'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in law in directing the assessing officer to treat the dividend income received from malaysia as not taxable in india?'2. mrs. pushya sitharaman, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the revenue fairly submitted that the issue raised in the question of law is covered against the revenue by the decision of this court in cit v. o.r.m.s.s.s. sevugan chettiar : [2000]241itr662(mad) , which followed an earlier decision of this court in cit v. v. r. s.r.m. firm : [1994]208itr400(mad) .3. following the said decisions and for the reasons stated therein, we answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. no costs.