IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1231 OF 1996 OF MOTION NO. 1231 OF 1996 OF MOTION NO. 1231 OF 1996 IN IN IN WEALTH WEALTH WEALTH TAX APPLICATION (L) NO. 244 OF 1996 TAX APPLICATION (L) NO. 244 OF 1996 TAX APPLICATION (L) NO. 244 OF 1996 WITH NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1232 OF 1996 OF MOTION NO. 1232 OF 1996 OF MOTION NO. 1232 OF 1996 IN IN IN WEALTH WEALTH WEALTH TAX APPLICATION (L) NO. 245 OF 1996 TAX APPLICATION (L) NO. 245 OF 1996 TAX APPLICATION (L) NO. 245 OF 1996 WITH NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1230 OF 1996 OF MOTION NO. 1230 OF 1996 OF MOTION NO. 1230 OF 1996 IN IN IN WEALTH WEALTH WEALTH TAX APPLICATION (L) NO. 246 OF 1996 TAX APPLICATION (L) NO. 246 OF 1996 TAX APPLICATION (L) NO. 246 OF 1996 Commissioner of Wealth-tax, ... Applicant Bombay, City-VIII, Bombay. V/s. Balkrishna Binani ... Respondent Mr. R.G. Bhatt for the applicant. Mr. Aasifa Khan for the respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & : H.L. GOKHALE & : H.L. GOKHALE & V.R. V.R. V.R. KINGAONKAR,JJ. KINGAONKAR,JJ. KINGAONKAR,JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 14th August, 2006 : 14th August, 2006 : 14th August, 2006 P.C. . Heard Mr. Bhatt in support of this motion. Ms. Aasifa Khan appears for the respondent. The motion seeks condonation of delay of 806 days in filing the Wealth Tax Application. The ground given is inadequate staff, inadvertence and bonafide error. It is also submitted that large amount of revenue is involved. That apart, it is pointed out that the ( 2 ) question which is sought to be conveyed is covered in favour of the department in Bharat Hari Singhania & Bharat Hari Singhania & Bharat Hari Singhania & Ors. Ors. Ors. V/s. Commissioner of Wealth Tax and Others V/s. Commissioner of Wealth Tax and Others V/s. Commissioner of Wealth Tax and Others reported in 207 ITR Page. 1 207 ITR Page. 1 207 ITR Page. 1. As far as delay in any of such matters is concerned, the Apex Court has observed in G. Ramegowda V/s. Special Land G. Ramegowda V/s. Special Land G. Ramegowda V/s. Special Land Acquisition Acquisition Acquisition Offier, 1988 Offier, 1988 Offier, 1988 reported in AIR 1988 Supreme AIR 1988 Supreme AIR 1988 Supreme Court Court Court 897, 897, 897, that when public cases are involved, the Court has to be little more careful. A similar view has been recently taken again in State of Nagaland State of Nagaland State of Nagaland V/s. V/s. V/s. Lipok AO Lipok AO Lipok AO reported in 2005 (183) E.L.T. Page 337 2005 (183) E.L.T. Page 337 2005 (183) E.L.T. Page 337 (S.C) (S.C) (S.C). In the circumstances, we condone the delay. The application be numbered. [H.L. [H.L. [H.L. GOKHALE, J.] GOKHALE, J.] GOKHALE, J.] [V.R. [V.R. [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] KINGAONKAR, J.] KINGAONKAR, J.]