Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A. Vijayakant - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- 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. f.m. ibrahim kalifulla, j.1. the revenue has come forward with the above appeal raising the following substantial questions of law:1. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax appellate tribunal was right in upholding the order of the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) restricting the disallowance of rasigar manram expenses to 20 per cent. of the claim even though the expenses had not been established to be genuine with supporting vouchers or other forms of evidence ?2. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax appellate tribunal was right in upholding the order of the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) restricting the disallowance of rasigar manram expenses to 20 per cent. of the claim even though the assessee had not established that such expenditure, if any, had been incurred wholly, necessarily and exclusively for the purpose of his profession ?2. the assessee is a popular cine actor. the assessment relates to the year 2004-05. the assessee claimed a sum of rs. 20,19,000 towards rasigar manram expenses. the assessing authority rejected the said claim. however, the commissioner of income-tax (appeals), after noticing the fact that for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2003-04, the disallowance on the said head was restricted to 20 per cent. allowed the assessee's appeal by restricting the disallowance to 20 per cent. for the assessment year 2004-05. while doing so, the commissioner of income-tax (appeals), apart from taking note of the relief granted in the previous assessment years, also held that rasigar manram expenses are most important expenses for the assessee in order to maintain his popularity among the fans and those expenses are relevant to the appellant's profession. the tribunal concurred with the conclusion of the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) and confirmed his order. we also fully support the reasoning of the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) as well as that of the tribunal, having restricted the disallowance to an extent of 20 per cent.3. it is a well known fact that popular cine artists promote their rasigar manrams for the purpose of promoting their films among the public at large. for that purpose, when it is claimed that substantial amount was spent towards dress, food, etc., at the time of the release of the new films as well as for the regular maintenance of the rasigar manram activities, it cannot be held that it was not part of their professional activities, namely, acting in cine field. therefore, the perception of the commissioner of income-tax (appeals), which found favour with the tribunal, cannot be faulted. we, therefore, do not find any question of law, much less substantial question of law, to entertain this appeal. the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.