COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. MEGHJI GIRDHARILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, has preferred this application under Section 29 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for granting a certificate for leave for filing an appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment delivered by this court in CWT v. Meghaji Girdharilal (Misc. Civil Case No. 179/1984) decided on 22-7-1985--[1989] 177 ITR 297 (MP) (Appx.) (infra). THE application under Section 29(1) of the Act filed by the applicant is barred by 27 days. Initially, no application was filed by the applicant to condone the delay. When the matter came up for hearing on admission, the applicant prayed for time. Ultimately, an application I. A. No. 275/1986 was filed on January 16, 1986, which was supported by an affidavit of the upper division clerk in the office of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. THE matter came before this court for hearing on August 21, 1987. After hearing counsel, this court directed the applicant to furnish necessary details and particulars regarding the date on which the special leave petition before the Supreme Court was filed and when it was detected that the petition for leave to appeal should have been filed and, thereafter, when it was withdrawn. THE applicant prayed for time ; but after giving a number of opportunities, no particulars were furnished. Not only this, the applicant has not filed any memo of special leave petition filed before the Supreme Court nor any affidavit of any counsel or the departmental head, who passed the order for filing the special leave petition before the Supreme Court, to the effect that he or counsel acted bona fide and diligently and prosecuted the special leave petition before the Supreme Court.

(2.) SHRI R. C. Mukati, learned counsel for the applicant, contended that the matter involves a substantial question of law of public importance. As such, the delay, if any, caused deserves to be condoned. He placed reliance on a decision of the apex court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 and also contended that there are differences of opinion on the point involved among various High Courts with the decisions of the Full Bench of this court in CWT v. Smt. Tarabai Kanakmal [1983] 140 ITR 374 and CIT v. Narbharam Popat Bhai and Sons [1988] 170 ITR 612.

(3.) IN the result, this petition under Section 29 of the Act is dismissed as barred by time. No order as to costs.