excess profits tax assessment of this assessee for chargeable accounting period ending 30-9-1943 year of assessment 1944-45 was reopened by Excess Profits Tax Officer (EPTO) consequent to disallowance of sum of Rs. 3,35,938 in income-tax assessment. This latter sum was assessed to income-tax also in reassessment. Rejecting assessee's objection, EPTO completed fresh assessment and demanded extra tax payable. Before Commissioner (Appeals), assessee challenged validity of assessment itself and addition of Rs. 6,35,938 to profits liable to excess profit tax. Commissioner (Appeals) decided matter against assessee on both points. Hence, appeal before Tribunal. 2. Before Tribunal, elaborate grounds of appeal were taken dealing with reopening as well as quantum of reassessment. additional ground was raised that conditions necessary for issue of notice under action 1 5 of Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 ('the EPT Act') were absent in assessee's case. notice was issued after lapse of about 35 years from relevant accounting year. income-tax reassessment having been completed b y about 15-2-1954 and no proceedings for excess profit tax reassessment having been started for more than two decades, reopening was illegal and inequitable. After hearing objections of learned counsel for department, additional ground was admitted. additional ground went to root of matter and factual submissions of department with regard to this ground were necessary to mete out justice. It was found that question of long delay was taken up even before EPTO. 3. Both original income-tax assessment under section 23(3) of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ('the 1922 Act') and excess profits tax assessment under section 14(1) of Act were made on 31-7-1945. On 25-3- 1949 income-tax assessment was reopened. excess profit tax assessment consequential to same was also reopened on same day under section 15(1). Reopening income-tax assessment second time, reassessment under section 23(3) read with section 34 of 1922 Act was made on 15-2-1954 resulting in addition to total income of Rs. 6,35,938. This order went up to Tribunal on appeal. Tribunal's order upholding addition of Rs. 6,35,938 was passed on 3-12-1962. No reference application having been filed, this reassessment of 1954 has become final. EPTO reopened excess profit tax assessment under section 15 to give effect to addition made to income-tax assessment of Rs. 6,35,938 on 22-7-1976, i.e., exactly 22 years after income-tax reassessment was made. reopened excess profit tax proceedings were concluded by making assessment under section 15(1) on 21-6-1978-24 years after reassessment for income-tax was made and at least 16 years after Tribunal's order confirming income-tax additions was passed. 4. Noting inordinate delay in starting excess profit tax proceedings of 22 years which was claimed to be fatal to legality of proceedings themselves apart from abuse of power it involved, Tribunal thought that department might as well have valid reason for long delay. For assessment year 1943-44, where similar question was involved, Tribunal had remitted matter for reconsideration by lower authorities. This took place as early as on 19-3-1976. learned counsel for department requested that in order to ascertain reasons for delay for assessment year 1944-45, matter be remanded to EPTO. matter remanded to EPTO for 1943-44 for reconsideration had not been disposed of by EPTO even at time of this hearing in 1982. We were not, therefore, inclined to pass remand order for this year. We, however, adjourned case to give departmental counsel sufficient time to ascertain and submit reasons for inordinate delay in completing excess profit tax reassessment proceedings. interim order was passed for this purpose on 2-12-1982. learned counsel for department submitted department's explanation for delay in following term [extracted from letter of 1st ITO (Assessment), dated 25-2-1983]: " On going through excess profit tax records, it appears that for assessment year 1944-45, income-tax assessment was reopened under section 34 of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which ultimately resulted in all addition of Rs. 6,35,938 being rate difference disallowed by ITO. This addition was deleted (upheld) by AAC but finally ITAT restored ITO's order and confirmed addition. reassessment proceedings were initiated after confirmed addition. reassessment proceedings were initiated after income-tax order became final in view of ITAT confirming addition in income-tax assessments. Probably, this was reason for delay in reopening t h e assessment. Further, it is submitted that concerned Officer Shri T.L. Nilakantan is no longer available for giving his comments as he has retired from Government service. " It was pointed out that delay was due to reasons beyond control of concerned officials. 5. parties were heard on appeal. learned counsel for department pointed out that income-tax order was reopened and reassessment was made. addition made on account of rate difference unexplained by assessee was upheld by first appellate authority and was confirmed by Tribunal. excess profit tax reassessment proceedings were initiated after income-tax order became final and department was sure that after Tribunal's order assessee did not pursue matter further in High Court or Supreme Court. reopening was delayed on account of above. learned counsel pointed out that Act is very old legislation; there is practically no excess profit tax circle working; excess profit tax matters that arose were dealt by ITOs unacquainted with Act, some of them even recruited long after Act became inoperative. ITO in charge or file at relevant time is not available to give any comments. He has retired from Government service. matter was of vital importance to revenue. But as it sometimes happens, due to change in law, change in officers, excess of work for department etc., unavoidable delay occurred in starting excess profit tax proceedings. 6. delay in excess profit tax reassessment, according to learned counsel, was on account of bonafide administrative reasons. Government should not suffer on account of defaults of its employees especially those beyond their control. This is important aspect of sovereignty of Government itself and has more serious implications in its unexceptionable taxing power. Wherever chances of delay exist and delay would be adverse to interest of citizen, time limits are provided. Where interest of citizen is not affected adversely, time limits are neither necessary nor provided. No time limit for making excess profit tax reassessment is provided by law. proceedings were not, therefore, illegal. To import limitation where none is provided, would really be legislating in manner Legislature itself has declined to do. learned counsel pointed out that reassessment to income-tax has been upheld even by Tribunal. assessee has not filed reference application. reassessment to excess profit tax was, therefore, mandatory consequence. Under no provision of 1922 Act or EPT Act or general law can assessee escape from mandatory reassessment to excess profit tax. On merits, there is no inequity. With law clear as to taxability, even under normal circumstances One cannot take advantage of technicalities. To do so in case where no limitation is provided would, according to learned counsel, be unjustified. Reference is made to Ram Kishan Baldeo Prasad v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 491 (All.), CIT v. Rupsa Rice Mills [1964] 65 ITR 328 (Ori.) and Swastik Oil Mills Ltd. v. H.P. Munshi [1968] 21 STC 383. In Lalta Prasad Goenka v. CIT [1980] 122 ITR 399, Bombay High Court held that order of penalty is not vulnerable merely on account of delay. 7. For assessee assessment is challenged both on question of law and on ground of inequity. That even in cases where no limitation is provided, inordinate delay results in illegality finds support from decisions of Allahabad High Court in Mohd. Atiq v. ITO [1962] 46 ITR 452, Bisheshwar Lal v. ITO [1970] 75 ITR 698 (All.) and ITO v. Bisheshwar Lal [1970] 76 ITR 653 (All.). Bombay High Court in Chimanram Moti Lal (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 809, considered all cases and held that unexplained delay would invalidate levy. Though that decision related to penalty, rates would apply to present situation as well. On merit, it is pointed out that mere absence of limitation period would not justify making reassessment at any time officer liked. persons who knew facts are no more. condition of assessee has changed substantially. Great prejudice is caused to assessee since nobody alive in company could appreciate situation or give proper defence. Even in excess profit tax proceedings, assessee could show that original addition in income-tax assessment was not justified in law and reassessment to excess profit tax should not be proceeded with. In fact for assessment year 1943-44, matter is still pending. This according to learned counsel, lent support to his view that excess profit tax assessment was different from income-tax assessment and excess profit tax reassessment would be automatic. Making reassessment after unreasonable period of delay prejudiced assessee gravely. 8. On consideration of facts, we hold that reassessment is not justified in present case. income-tax reassessment was made as early s in 1954. excess profit tax proceedings were started 22 years later and completed only 24 years after reassessment. On very day income-tax reassessment was made, consequential reassessment to excess profit tax could also have been completed and extra tax demanded. ITO was not stranger to proceedings and knew that consequential reassessment to excess profit tax had to be made. On earlier occasion when income-tax assessment was reopened, excess profit tax reassessment was also made on very same day. Was there reasonable cause justifying unduly delayed starting of proceedings and making reassessment? reason given by department is that they waited for income-tax assessment to become final. If this reason was accepted, that would cut down delay to 16 years--an equally long period. We see no reason why in view of usual delay income-tax appellate proceedings take, ITO should have even waited for income-tax assessment to become final. excess profit tax reassessment should have been made immediately and tax collected so as to safeguard it from any possible difficulty for assessee to pay it. delay is inordinate. reason given by ITO does not justify it. It is also mentioned that concerned ITO having left service on retirement, full details cannot be obtained. Even this is not acceptable explanation. If single ITO's retirement disables department from giving reason for delay, how much, prejudice should disappearance of all its employees cause to assessee? Over 22 years and even 16 years entire shareholders' financial position, staff members, etc., of company undergo great change. It is also settled that where delay is to b e explained, every component of period of delay should be explained. general explanation as to departmental difficulties and harm done to State by inadvertent defaults of its officers would not be sufficient explanation for delay. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that delay in making t h e assessment proceedings is inordinate and there is no satisfactory explanation for it from revenue. reasons given could at best explain few months, if not days of period. 9. We also hold that apart from strict legal validity or otherwise of reassessment, delay has caused substantial prejudice to assessee and injustice to him. There is authority for proposition--Indian Woollen Textile Mills v. CEPT [1960] 39 ITR 289 (Punj.) that excess profit tax proceedings are different from income-tax proceedings. computation of chargeable profits for purposes of excess profit tax has to be made on basis of provisions in Schedule I. Schedule I gives separate calculation for excess profit tax and it is not verbating reproduction of income-tax assessment order. It is true that second proviso to clause (1) of Schedule, as vehemently contended by learned counsel for department, takes in, as it were income-tax profit as relevant for excess profit tax purposes. Even so there are several other provisions in Schedule which could make difference in actual figure. If any acceptable or justified modifications in income-tax figure of assessment were proper such as in case of rectification, same could be relevant for excess profit tax purposes. Even though, therefore, basis of excess profit tax profit calculation is income-tax profit, separate process is involved in former which ITO should adopt and with regard to which assessee could bargain at time of making excess profit tax assessment. In fact in case of income-tax assessment for year under appeal, Tribunal upheld addition but penalty levied was cancelled on fresh reappraisal of facts. It is such reappraisal which made Tribunal remit matter for assessment year 1943-44 to authorities below. assessee's claim, therefore, that on account of long delay, people who would have clarified position in detail at time of reassessment to excess profit tax were not available and this has caused prejudice to him, cannot altogether be brushed aside. 10. In Chimanram Motilal (P.) Ltd.'s case Bombay High Court considered question at length and expressed their concurrence with following observations of Kerala High Court in Krishna Bhatta v. Agrl. ITO [1981] 132 ITR 21: [1981] 132 ITR 21: " If it could be found on facts and circumstances of case that there is unreasonable delay in initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty, such proceedings would be bad in law. long delay by itself may prima facie be unreasonable but if, in such case, there is explanation for delay, that explanation has to be considered. But if there be no explanation at all and authority acts under impression that, in absence of period of limitation in Act, it is open to it to exercise its power after any number of years, that would be unsustainable approach. If in such case Court finds that such exercise has been beyond reasonable time and there is no scope for examination of explanation, action would be bad.... " Their Lordships also held that two issues to be decided are whether delay was inordinate and whether there was any explanation tendered by revenue explaining inordinate delay. For reasons set out at length above, we decide matter against department holding that inordinate delay has not been explained at all. assessee must succeed on this ground alone. 11. assessee's learned counsel has raised alternative ground that s was done for assessment year 1943-44, matter should at best be remitted to authorities below. Since we accept main arguments advanced by assessee, alternative ground is not considered. other grounds of appeal regarding reopening on merits are also not, therefore, considered. 12. appeal is allowed. *** HARINAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. v. EXCESS PROFITS TAX OFFICER