INCOME TAX COMMISSIONER, KARACHI vs MESSRS AZAD FRIENDS & Co. LTD., KARACHI
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the Income Tax Commissioner, Karachi, against Messrs Azad Friends & Co. Ltd., Karachi, which was found to be barred by 687 days. The core legal question was whether sufficient cause had been shown to condone the extraordinary delay in filing the petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the explanation proffered regarding the time spent awaiting a copy of the High Court's order was untenable, as no such copy was necessary for filing the petition, and the appeal was not against an order modifying any previous decision. Consequently, the ratio decidendi is that time spent obtaining unnecessary documents does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under limitation principles. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking condonation of delay must provide a continuous, cogent, and legally justifiable explanation for every day of delay beyond the prescribed limitation period.
- Does the time spent obtaining an unnecessary copy of an order constitute sufficient ground for condoning delay?
- Whether a petition filed with an unexplained delay of hundreds of days can be entertained without valid justification?
- Does an order clarifying that a case depends on its facts amount to a modification of a previous order for limitation purposes?
- Section 66-A (2), Income-tax Act, 1922
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The office note shows that the peti--petition is barred by 687 days. The explanation for condonation of delay is that the judgment of the High Court was passed on the 19th November 1969. The petitioner applied for certificate to under section 66-A (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922., on the 28th February 1970, and the application was dismissed on the 15th September 1971.
2. Even if this time is excluded there is no explanation why the petitioner filed petition for special leave to appeal in the Supreme Court on the 7th October 1971. There is at least a delay from 15th September 1971 to 7th October 1971.
3. Mr. S. A. Nusrat, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that this time was taken for obtaining a copy of the order dated the 15th September 1971. No such copy was necessary to file in this Court. The next contention of Mr. Nusrat that the appeal is against the order dated the 15th September 1971, has also no force. By this order, the High Court has not modified its previous order.
4. It has only said that the decision of each case depends on its facts. The petition is dismissed as barred by time.