1986 PLP 1255 (SCMR)

DORAB PATEL, J.‑‑These 26 petitions have been filed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, dated 5th August, 1975. The facts relevant to these petitions are that the respondents are exporters of rice and had submitted their returns of income from their rice business for the assessment year 1973‑

74. Some time thereafter, the Central Board of Revenue issued a notification on 14‑3‑1974 under sub‑clause (i) (b) of clause (11) of section 2 of the Income‑tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the said Act 'by which the previous year for rice exporters was defined to mean a period extending up to 29 months. The petitioner, who is the Income‑tax Officer for the relevant circle, thereupon issued notices to all the respondents in these petitions that they should file revised returns for the assessment year 1973‑74 in accordance with this notification by which the accounting year of these respondents had been enlarged by the Central Board of Revenue. The respondents therefore, filed writ petitions in the Sind and Baluchistan High Court challenging the validity of this notification and the notices issued to them by the petitioner in pursuance of this notification. These writ petitions were heard together with another writ petition filed by Messrs Hasan Ali a Co. Ltd. and were allowed by the learned Judges by their judgment dated 5‑8‑1975. Messrs Hasan Ali a Co. Ltd. thereupon filed a petition for leave against this judgment being Petition No. K‑180 of 1975 which we admitted on 20‑2‑1976. However, in our admission order in that petition, we had pointed out that propriety required that the petitioner should file petitions for leave in the twenty‑six other writ petitions which had been allowed by the same judgment, therefore, the petitioner has now filed these petitions for leave. As the petitions were filed on 2‑4‑1976 long after our admission order in Petition No. K‑180 of 1975, the petitions are supported by applications for condoning delay and the explanation for the delay in all the petitions is identical. According to the petitioner, the delay was caused by the time required in obtaining a certified copy of our admission order in Petition No. K‑180 of 1975 and time was also required for obtaining necessary sanction for funds and for preparing the petitions. Assuming that the petitioner is entitled to the exclusion of time for obtaining the certified copy of the order of admission in Petition No. K‑180 of 1975, the certified copy was collected on 22‑3‑1976. The only explanation of the delay between this date and the 2nd April, 1976 is that time was required for obtaining the necessary sanction for funds and for preparing the petitions. The explanation about the requirement of time for preparing the petitions is not satisfactory because the judgment under appeal was with the petitioner. The real reason for the delay appears to be that time was spent in obtaining sanction for funds. No details of this delay are given, and as the petitioner had to explain each day's delay, the explanation fails to make out sufficient cause. Accordingly we dismiss all these petitions on the ground that they are time‑barred. M.Y.H.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????? Leave refused.