P.R. Kumarappan Vs. Cwt - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
counsels: t. nareshkumar, for the respondent in the madras high court r. jayasimha babu & k. raviraja pandian, 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. orderr. jayasimha babu, j.this reference is at the instance of the assessee. the assessee was served with notice regarding the pendency of this reference way back in the year 1994. the assessee did not appear in person or through counsel. another notice was sent on 9-8-2002 and served on the assessee on 16-8-2002. even thereafter the assessee has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. there is no representation on his behalf.2. the question referred to us at the assessees instance are :'1. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in confirming the denial of the claim of the applicant for exemption under section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the wealth tax act?2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the requirement of section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the wealth tax act read with section 6 of the income tax act was not satisfied by the applicant?'3. the assessment year is 1988-89. counsel for the revenue submits that questions similar to these have already been considered and decided in the case of ve. periannan v. cwt : [1999]240itr723(mad) . in that case it has been held that a hindu undivided family is not entitled to the benefit of exemption under section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the income tax act. both the questions referred to us are, therefore, answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.

Judgment:
ORDER

R. Jayasimha Babu, J.

This reference is at the instance of the assessee. The assessee was served with notice regarding the pendency of this reference way back in the year 1994. The assessee did not appear in person or through counsel. Another notice was sent on 9-8-2002 and served on the assessee on 16-8-2002. Even thereafter the assessee has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. There is no representation on his behalf.

2. The question referred to us at the assessees instance are :

'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the denial of the claim of the applicant for exemption under section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth Tax Act?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the requirement of section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth Tax Act read with section 6 of the Income Tax Act was not satisfied by the applicant?'

3. The assessment year is 1988-89. Counsel for the revenue submits that questions similar to these have already been considered and decided in the case of VE. Periannan v. CWT : [1999]240ITR723(Mad) . In that case it has been held that a Hindu undivided family is not entitled to the benefit of exemption under section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Income Tax Act. Both the questions referred to us are, therefore, answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.