1981 PLP 134 (PTD)

ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, J.‑‑The present application under section 27(31 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 has been filed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (West), Karachi (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioner"), seeking answers on taco separate questions which are the following :‑ "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribu nal was justified in holding that the Wealth tax Officer had proceeded section 7(2) of the Wealth Tax Act by adopting the bulk valuation basis in this ‑case? (2) Without prejudice to the above question whether the Tribunal was justified in accepting the book value of 2,01,600 shares of Adamjee Jute Mills Limited, as recorded in the balance‑sheet instead of the market value thereof as on 31‑12‑1962 when the Wealth Tax Officer while determining the valuation of assets under section 27(2) is authoris ed to make such adjustments in the balance‑sheet as the circumstances of the case require?" The respondents Messrs Oriental Investment Trading Co. Ltd. is herein after referred to as "the assessee". We have heard Mr. Mansoor Ahmad Khan, Advocate for the Commissioner and Mr. Ali Athar, Advocate for the assessee.

2. The assessee is a public Limited Company and for the assessment year 1963‑64 its balance‑sheet dated, 31‑12‑1963 had shown an investment in the shares of Messrs Adamjee Jute Mills at Rs. 30,43,

107. The market value of such shares had also been shown by the assessee at Rs. 39,17,

088. The Wealth Tax Officer for the purpose of assessment of wealth tax adopted the market value of the said shares as the standard of wealth. He added Rs. 8,73,981 to the wealth computation of the assessee. The assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but the same was dismissed. A further appeal was filed before the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal, Karachi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal) and by an order dated 29‑5‑1968 the appeal was upheld to the extent of computation of wealth following the shares purchased by the assessee. Following some earlier orders in other cases the Tribunal computed the wealth on the basis of purchase price of the shares without referring to the market value as disclosed by the assessee. The Commissioner was aggrieved by such an order of the Tribunal and he made an application under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act requiring the Tribunal to refer the aforesaid two questions of law to the High Court. The Tribunal rejected such a prayer on the ground that the first question sought to be raised was a pure question of fact whereas second question did not arise from the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal refused to refer the case to the High Court on 3‑7‑1970.

3. One of the preliminary points that has been urged before us by Mr. Ali Athar is the bar by reason of time to the maintainability of the present application. Subsection (3) of section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act prescribes a period of limitation extending to three months from the date on which the party seeking remedy from the High Court has to apply. Section 5 of the Limitation Act is made applicable by subsection (9) of section

17. The order of the Tribunal was passed on 3‑7‑1970 and was received by the Commis sioner on 27‑10‑1970. The period of three months provided under subsec tion (3) of section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act expired on 27‑1‑1971 but the present application was presented in this Court on 24‑4‑1971 viz. after a delay of two months and twenty‑seven days. On behalf of the Commissioner an application has been made under section 5 of the Limitation Act read with subsection (9) of section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act to condone the delay in filing the application. This application is supported by an affidavit of one Muhammad Sabir, an Inspector in the Office of the Income‑tax Commissioner. The only ground that has been urged in support of condonation of delay is that the said Muhammad Sabir had never been earlier concerned with an application under section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act although he had in his official capacity been concerned with applications under 66 of the Income‑tax Act or section 17 of the Sales Tax Act. He states that since the limitation for applications under section 66 of the Income‑tax Act or section 17 of the Sales Tax Act was six months he gathered an impression that similar period is provided for applications under section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act. It is best to reproduce the explanation offered by Income‑tax Inspector Muhammad Sabir in his own words. Paragraph 2 of his affidavit reads as follows:

"

2. That according to the office record the order of the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal was received in the Office of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax/Income‑tax, West, Karachi, on 27‑10‑1970. However, since no application under Wealth Tax Act was filed during the tenure of my office and only applications under section 66(2) of the Income tax Act and section 17(2) of the Sales Tax Act are commonly and usually filed in the High Court where the period of limitation is six months from the date of the receipt of the order, the date of expiry of the period of limitation was noted on the file of the case when I was on leave as 27‑4‑1971 under the impression that the period of (sic).

4. Mr. Mansoor Ahmad Khan found it difficult to justify the case for condonation of delay on the ground, which has been urged in support of the prayer. Mr. Ali Athar has on the other hand opposed the grant of applica tion for condonation of delay and he has also placed before us a simple copy of the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Habib Safe Deposit Vault Ltd. W. T. C. No. 73 of 1969), decided by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of their Lordships Mr. Justice Dorab Patel (as he then was) and Mr. Justice Zaffar Hussain Mirza. In this case on the factual plane the facts were similar to the facts of the present case and even the question referred was the same as in the present case. The question was answered by the Division Bench in favour of the assessee: These are, however, matters concerning merits but since we are inclined to dismiss this application on the ground of its being time‑barred we have not thought it fit to enter into the merits of the case although it would seem that the judgment of the Division Bench which decided the case of Habib Safe Deposit Vault Ltd., besides being binding on us, correctly states the legal position.

5. The only question in this case is whether the application is barred by time and if so whether on the grounds stated in the affidavit of Muhammad Sabir a case of condonation of delay has been made out. There can be no two opinions that the application made to this Court under section 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act is barred by nearly three months. Ignorance or mistake can never be available to a suit for condonation of delay in institution of a cause and there is a long line of decisions on that point. The law of limitation, which is a statute of repose is designed to settle rights and to bar stale and water‑logged disputes. The rules underlying limitation of causes have to be enforced even at the risk of hardships to a particular party and are not relax able even on equitable grounds what to speak of ignorance of law. If the Office of the Commissioner acting on impressions that limitation of six months being provided under section 66 of Income‑tax Act or section 17 of the Sales Tax Act, presumes that same period of limitation must be pro vided even for applications under section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, they have only to thank themselves. No good ground has been made out for entertain ing of this application. Before parting with the case we must state that the office had detected the delay underlying this cause and the learned Judges while admitting this application on 8‑10‑1971 had made it subject to the question of limitation which was permitted to be raised at the time of regular hearing.

6. In the result this application is dismissed. Application dismissed.