.....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.the substantial question of law that could be raised in this appeal is :'whether the tribunal's order is vitiated on account of utter non-application of mind ?'2. learned senior counsel presses this appeal on the sole ground of non-application of mind on the part of the tribunal. he points out that in the first seven or eight paragraphs, the tribunal has merely quoted the contentions and counter contentions by the assessee and the department, respectively. learned senior counsel points out that the assessee had raised as many as seven grounds. it is further submitted that the whole order is finished by the tribunal in paragraphs 8 and 9 by merely quoting the findings recorded by the commissioner (appeals) in his paragraphs 11, 14, 16 and 18 to 21. beyond certifying those findings to be correct, the tribunal does not seem to have applied its mind at all. we do not know as to why the tribunal has held that the commissioner (appeals) was correct in holding the transaction as a business transaction, for which no reasons are forthcoming. similarly, no reasons are forthcoming again for certifying as correct the findings of the commissioner (appeals) in paragraphs 18 to 21, which discuss about the amounts which are eligible for deduction.3. the tribunal being the final fact-finding authority was expected to apply its mind to the contentions and issues and give a separate finding on each issue. it is true that the order of the tribunal is a confirming order. but, that would not absolve the tribunal from independently examining the issues and then discussing the same. we, therefore, set aside the order and direct the tribunal to decide it afresh after giving opportunity to the assessee.