It is stressed that .Ground No. 1 was not original ly taken by him in the grounds of appeal filed before the Assistant Appellate Commissioner, al though subsequently in the Additional grounds filed about one month after the institution of the ap peals, he, as an after thought, did introduce "Ground No. 1", that he did not make any grievance whatever on the score of Ground No. 1 in his appli cation for rectification of the Tribunal 's orders, filed on July 27, 1951; that for more than 5 years after the announcement of the appellate orders of the Tribunal, he made no application to the Tribu nal for review and rectification of its appellate orders in relation to Ground No. 1; that the assessee delayed the making of the application, dated April 2, 1956 presumably with a view to ensure that at the time of its presentation, none of the members of the Tribunal who had originally decided the assessee 's appeals, was there to hear the application; that even in this inordinately delayed application, review and rectification was not asked for in a straight forward manner but it was disguised as an application for decision of the appeals which on account of non decision of Ground No. 1 were alleged to be still pending; that the writ petition was filed after an abnormal delay of ten years; that a perusal of the assessment orders made by the Excess Profits Tax Officer and the Assistant Appellate Commissioner, and even the memoranda of appeals filed before the Tribunal shows that at no stage the assessee furnished complete accounts or even a statement showing variation in the capital during the relevant peri ods.