Cit Vs. Bajrang Enterprises

.....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..........by the commissioner and the commissioner's order was upheld by the tribunal. the commissioner, in the course of his order, has referred to a circular issued by the central board of direct taxes and this is what the commissioner has observed in relation to that circular :'i find that the central board of direct taxes had occasion to consider the question of allowance of development rebate to dumpers and tippers though they were registered under the motor vehicles act. in the board's instruction f. no. 202/34/72-ita-ii, dated 15-3-1975, the board had directed that the test as to whether a particular vehicle was a road transport vehicle or not would be the test of the use to which the vehicle is ordinarily put and not merely the fact that it is capable of moving on the roads. the board expressed the view that dumpers and tippers could not be treated as road transport vehicles within the meaning of section 33(1) of the act.'by the standard laid down by the board itself, it is clear that the dumpers in this case, which were being used for mining purposes and not merely for carrying goods on the roads were not required to be treated as motor transport vehicles. the investment in the dumpers having been made by the assessee and the dumpers having been used for the purpose of mining, investment allowance was clearly allowable and had rightly been allowed by the commissioner and the tribunal.we, therefore, answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.