.....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.....v. s. sirpurkar, j. 1. the department is challenging the order passed by the income tax appellate tribunal, chennai, upholding the order passed by the lower authority and dismissing the appeal of the department.2. the assessee herein is a mother and she had gifted certain gold ornaments, silverware and brassware to her daughter at the time when the marriage of the daughter was performed. it so happened that at that time even the father of the daughter had gifted her certain gold ornaments.3. however, in the case of the father it was found that since the gift was covered by section 5(1)(vii) of the gift tax act, 1958, the claim for the gift-tax was not maintainable. now it is the case of the mother, who is admittedly an independent assessee, which would obviously mean that she also may have the income of her own. be that as it may, if in the case of a father it is accepted that the gifts from him would be covered under section 5(1)(vii), there is no reason why the same logic should not apply to the mother of the girl also. the section requires that in order for its being attracted the gift should have been made to any relative who is dependent on the assessee for support and maintenance at the time of the marriage of such relative subject to, of course, a particular limit. it is not the case here that this limit has been crossed. a daughter can always be held to be a dependant of both the father as well as the mother particularly when both have their own income. in that view, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the tribunal. the appeal is dismissed.