Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

----S. 134 (3) & (4)---Departmental appeal ---Limitation---Condonation---Appellant neither explained any reason nor had filed any application for condonation of delay in riling appeal in time---Appeal was dismissed as time -barred.

Nazir Ahmad Zia, A.C., D.R. for Appellant.

Manzoor Hussain Mir, CA. for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 19th April, 1989.

ORDER

FAKHARUDDIN SIDDIQUI (JUDICIAL MEMBER).---These departmental appeals have been brought against the order, dated 20-11-1984 communicated to the appellant (department) on 27-11-1984 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Zone-I, Lahore, for the charge years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1983-84 respectively challenging that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified in allowing the wealth tax liability.

2. Mr. Manzoor Hussain Mir, Authorized Representative, counsel for the respondent (assessee) at the outset raised a legal objection regarding limitation. According to record the appeal was filed in the Tribunal's registry office on 5-2-1985 which was barred by 10 days time. The Department neither explained reasons nor had filed any application for condonation of delay in filing appeal in time. The objection raised before us pertains to the legal scrutiny, hence, this is decided first leaving aside the appeal on merits.

3. No one can be compelled to forego any part of the period of limitation and is entitled to utilize the full period, if he so chooses. Thus the literal and restricted construction would lead to extraordinary results and in some matters into impossible situations. Ignorance of law is no ground for condonation and in any event it would not be for us to condone the delay as relief in this respect was not sought neither earlier nor today. The Court of Enquiry in England, and all the Courts and Tribunals in this country have, while deciding upon discretionary reliefs recognized, applied and enforced as a measure of their practice and procedure the principle of laches.

4. In face of these circumstances nothing prompts us to go into the merits of the appeals. The impugned order needs no further consideration by us, hence, maintained.

5. The Department appeals being devoid of merits need no consideration, hence, dismissed.

M.BA./1717/T Appeals dismissed.