Srinivasan Co. Vs. Cit - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
counsels: r. janakiraman, for the assessee mrs. pushya sitharaman, for the revenue in the madras high court n.v. balasubramanian & 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. n.v. balasubramanian, j.in pursuance of the directions of this court, the income tax appellate tribunal has stated the case and referred the following questions of law :'1. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in computing the income with reference to the application of section 40(b) of the income tax act, 1961 for the assessment year 1984-85 while there was an amendment introduced by the taxation laws (amendment) act, 1984 with effect from 1-4-1985?2. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the reopening of the assessment under section 147 is valid in law?'2. the assessment year involved is 1984-85.3. mrs. pushya sitharaman, learned senior standing counsel for the revenue fairly submits that the issues raised in both the questions are covered against the revenue by the decision of the supreme court in brij mohan das laxman das v. cit : [1997]223itr825(sc) . following the said decision of the supreme court, both the questions of law referred to us are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.