Cgt Vs. A.P. Madhavan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
counsels: t.c.a. ramanujam, for the revenue r. meenakshisundaram, for the assessee 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. v.s. sirpurkar, j.the question referred to us at the instance of the revenue is as follows :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the donee from whom the gift-tax was sought to be recovered under section 29 of the gift tax act, 1958, could file an appeal under section 22 of the gift tax act ?'2. mr. r. meenakshisundaram, the learned counsel takes notice for the respondent.3. when the case was taken up for argument today, it was found that the assessee is no more and has expired. however, since this question is covered in favour of the assessee by a decision of this court, it would not be necessary to wait till the legal representatives are brought on record.the question is covered by the decision in cgt v. a. c. mahesh : [2001]252itr440(mad) where this court has considered a right in favour of the donee under section 22 of the gift tax act, 1958, from whom the tax is sought to be recovered.4. accordingly, the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. no costs.