Commissioner of Wealth-tax's Reference Applications rejected as time-barred, emphasizing equal application of limitation laws.

The Reference Applications filed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax were rejected as time-barred due to a delay of 220 days, exceeding the statutory limit for condonation. The department's reliance on the Receipt Register was insufficient to justify the delay, as evidence showed prior refusals of service. The judgment emphasized the equal application of limitation laws to both parties and the necessity of timely actions in legal proceedings. The lack of diligence and failure to explain the refusal of service led to the dismissal of the applications, highlighting the importance of adhering to procedural rules. The decision focused solely on the timeliness issue, resulting in the rejection of the Reference Applications.

---

---

Issues:
1. Timeliness of Reference Applications filed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to three Reference Applications filed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, arising from the Appellate Tribunal's consolidated order for the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71, and 1971-72. The primary issue raised was the timeliness of these applications, as they were filed 220 days late, exceeding the statutory limit of 30 days for condonation under section 27(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The department argued that the applications were filed within time based on the Receipt Register maintained by the office of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-I, New Delhi, showing receipt of the order on 2-2-1987. However, the assessee respondent contended that the service of the order had been twice refused on 26-6-1986 and 24-7-1986, as evidenced by the peon books, and later accepted on 2-2-1987. The department's explanation did not address the refusal of service, leading to a presumption of due service. The judgment cited precedents emphasizing the importance of supporting evidence and the need for departments to explain refusals of service. The refusal and subsequent acceptance of service without a valid explanation led to the conclusion that the applications were time-barred, as the delay of 220 days could not be condoned under the law.

The judgment highlighted the principle that the law of limitation applies equally to both the assessee and the department, emphasizing the importance of timely actions in legal proceedings. The refusal of service without a valid explanation raised doubts about the department's conduct, indicating a lack of diligence in handling the matter. The judgment underscored the significance of following procedural requirements and the consequences of failing to do so, especially in cases involving statutory timelines for filing applications. The absence of a request for condonation of delay from the department further weakened their position, leading to the rejection of the Reference Applications as time-barred. The decision to uphold the preliminary objection based on the delay underscored the strict adherence to procedural rules in legal matters, regardless of the party involved. The judgment concluded by rejecting the Reference Applications due to their untimely filing, without delving into the merits of the underlying issues, as the timeliness issue was determinative in this case.

---