JUDGMENT
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.
1. From a judgment and order of this court dated May 6, 1985, in Income-tax Reference No. 21 of 1977, the Revenue seeks to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court. The present application is an application for condonation of delay in filing the said application.
2. It appears from the records that certified copies of the judgment and order were applied for by the Revenue on May 9, 1985. The certified copy of the order was obtained on May 23, 1985, and the certified copy of the judgment was received on June 3, 1986. Taking into account the three days’
delay in applying for certified copies, the time to make the application
for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court expired on or about July 27,
1986.
3. The Revenue instructed its advocate-on-record to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court on July 11, 1986, more than one month after the certified copy of the judgment was made available. On July 16, 1986, learned lawyer was briefed to draw up the application. It appears that dictation of the draft application was given to the stenographer of the learned lawyer on or about July 22, 1986. The stenographer, it is alleged, fell sick and did not report for duty till August 10, 1986. The draft was finally made available to the Department on August 11, 1986. The application was finalised, made ready and affirmed on or about August 20, 1986.
4. By that time, the time to file the said application having expired, the Revenue started taking steps for making an application for condonation of delay. Instructions were received by the lawyer for drafting the second application on August 21, 1986. The said application was drafted and made over to the Department for approval on September 2, 1986. The records, it appears, were lost thereafter in the Department and were traced after searches on or about October 6, 1986, by which time this court had closed for the Puja vacation. The court reopened on November 4, 1986, and the present application has been filed on November 13, 1986. It appears to us that no grounds have been made out by the Revenue for condonation of the delay. Most of the material allegations in the petition are verified as based on records and not on anybody’s personal knowledge. There is no explanation for the delay which occurred during the intervening period at all. There is no explanation for the delay of more than one month in instructing the lawyer to draw up the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court after the certified copy of the judgment and order was received. Similarly, there is no explanation for instructing the advocate-on-record to draft the application for condonation of the delay on August 21, 1986, when the time to file the application for leave to appeal expired on July 21, 1986, itself. The two applications could have been combined and moved much earlier.
5. This application is rejected. There will be no order as to costs.
Monjula Bose, J.
6. I agree.