Cwt Vs. P. Natesan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
counsels: t.c.a. ramanujam, for the revenue in the madras high court v.s. sirpurkar & n.v. balasubramanian, jj. - t.n. estates (abolition & conversion into ryotwari) act, 1948 [act no. 26/1948]. sections 5(2) & 67; [a.p. shah, cj, mrs. prabha sridevan & p. jyothimani, jj] 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 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 the act is not tenable. orderv.s. sirpurkar, j.the question referred to us is as follows :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the wealth tax act, 1957, when the firm itself has not manufactured or processed any goods on its own looms ?'2. at the out set, the learned standing counsel for the department very fairly states that this matter is covered by the decision of this court in cwt v. k. lakshmi : [1983]142itr656(mad) . in that view, the question referred to us is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

V.S. Sirpurkar, J.

The question referred to us is as follows :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, when the firm itself has not manufactured or processed any goods on its own looms ?'

2. At the out set, the learned standing counsel for the department very fairly states that this matter is covered by the decision of this court in CWT v. K. Lakshmi : [1983]142ITR656(Mad) . In that view, the question referred to us is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. No costs.