Vide this reference application, Commissioner of Income-tax had sought reference under section 256(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 for as many as five questions, said to be questions of law, arising out of Tribunal order in GT Appeal No. 4 (Chd.) of 1984, dated 31-10-1985 (assessment year 1981-82), to High Court. Though said application was signed by Commissioner of Gift-tax Shri Balwant Singh also with statement of facts duly signed by him but as in heading of application, title of case was mentioned as CIT v. Smt. Ranjana Kumari and it was in Form No. 37 and it was also mentioned that reference application is under section 256(1) , learned counsel for assessee non-petitioner Smt. Ranjana Kumari came forward with preliminary objection that as reference application is neither under relevant section of gift-tax nor it is filed in prescribed form nor heading of same is CGT v. Smt. Ranjana Kumari, same deserves to be rejected. On 11-4-1986 when learned counsel for assessee argued at length assessee's case pertaining to preliminary objection challenging admission of reference application and praying that same be dismissed in limine and he seemed very serious about pressing same, objection not being such which is normally raised, he was required to file written submissions by 30-4-1986 and learned departmental representative on revenue's part by 15-5-1986. 2. learned counsel for assessee Mr. Bhim Sain filed written submissions in Tribunal's office on 21-4-1986, copy of which was given to learned departmental representative on 23-4-1986 by registry. reference application was listed for hearing on 18-7-1986. learned senior departmental representative Mr. R. K. Bali filed his written submissions only on 17-7-1986, copy of same was given to learned counsel for assessee. learned counsel for assessee at time of hearing pressed once again that reference application be dismissed in limine not only due to original three defects that its heading was wrong, section mentioned was under Income-tax Act and form was improper but also because learned senior departmental representative in spite of asking of Bench did not furnish his written submissions in time, as he filed same only on 17-7-1986 and copy of same was handed over to learned counsel for assessee on 18-7-1986. He also submitted that revenue should be taught lesson by rejection of such application because till date of hearing, i.e., 18-7-1986, even fresh and corrected application was not submitted before Tribunal. Besides highlighting what had stated in his written submission regarding preliminary objection, he drew our attention to case law cited in said submission, viz., Madan Lal v. ITAT [1963] 50 ITR 447 (Punj.), R. B. L. Banarsi Dass & Co. Ltd. v. ITAT [1959] 35 ITR 624 (Punj.), CIT v. Arvind Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. [1985] 19 TLR 477 (Delhi - Trib.) and Sant Baba Mohan Singh v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 197 (All.). He submitted that case of Gian Chand Vir Bhan v. CIT [1960] 39 ITR 414 (Punj.), on which reliance is placed by learned senior departmental representative is distinguishable. He submitted that requirement should be fully satisfied in case of reference application as per rules and also relied on cases of Trustees Corpn. (I) Ltd. v. CIT 4 ITC 378 (PC) and Dhanpat Mal Diwanchand v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 357 (Lahore), against which learned senior departmental representative also, beside supporting his brief written submissions, said that it was nothing more than mistake by inadvertence and for delay is submitting written submissions and not filing revised reference application forms till date of hearing took burden of mistake/lapse on behalf and submitted that day in and day out when assessee are not made to suffer due to mistake of their lawyers, once in while if mistake is of department, revenue should not be denied its legitimate right of coming into reference application. He wanted to file revised forms without any further loss of time but learned counsel for assessee was not agreeable to grant of any further time and submitted that he would like to have finding on preliminary objection first before reference application is heard on merit. 3. Before we come to adjudicate issues raised by learned counsel for assessee as preliminary objection, we are of view that for fairness to both parties and in interest of justice, written submissions made by both of them, assessee and revenue, be place here below: "Preliminary objections raised by learned counsel for assessee - said reference application is incompetent, having been made by authority who lacked jurisdiction to make reference application and secondly as application is not in prescribed form. 2. reference to High Court could be applied for against order dated 31-10-1985 of Hon'ble Tribunal by Commissioner in terms of section 26 of Gift-tax Act, 1958. 'Commissioner' is Commissioner of Gift- tax, vide section 2(vi) read with section 9. said application has, however, been made by Commissioner of Income-tax who had no locus standi in matter. 3. In Madan Lal v. ITAT [1963] 50 ITR 447, wherein application under section 66(2) of Indian Income-tax Act assessee had made Tribunal party instead of Commissioner of Income-tax, High Court of Punjab dismissed application as proper party had not been impleaded. 4. That presentation of appeal by proper party was matter which went to root of case, was held by Punjab High Court in R. B. L. Banarsi Dass & Co. Ltd. v. ITAT [1959] 35 ITR 624. In that case, whereas assessment had been made by ITO at Amristar, 'appeal to Tribunal was made by ITO at Delhi. Tribunal overruled assessee's objection regarding competency of Delhi ITO to file appeal and subsequently its application for reference application to High Court on same point. High Court allowed t h e assessee's application under section 66(2) observing that question regarding competency of ITO at Delhi was matter which went to root of case. It went on to observe that 'the right of assessee or Commissioner of Income-tax to approach High Court in income-tax matters which arises out of provisions of section 66, can only be exercised, if requirements of that section are fully satisfied'. 5. Recently, Delhi Bench of Tribunal dismissed reference application made by Commissioner of Income-tax-II on ground that on date of presentation of that application, jurisdiction over case stood transferred to Commissioner of Income-tax-I vide CIT v. Arvind Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. [1985] 19 TLR 477. date of presentation was 18-8-1984. 6. proceeding taken by authority who lacked jurisdiction is void ab initio. Allahabad High Court held in Sant Baba Mohan Singh v. CIT [1973] 90 I T R 197 that ' proceeding is nullity when authority taking it has no jurisdiction either because of want of pecuniary jurisdiction or of territorial jurisdiction or of jurisdiction over subject-matter of proceedings.' 7. infirmity holds notwithstanding fact that person who was Commissioner of Income-tax on relevant date was Commissioner of Gift- tax also. What matters is capacity of that person in particular proceeding. To illustrate my point, if Governor of Punjab wants to issue ordinance under article 213 of Constitution but does it describing himself as chancellor of Punjab University which office also he holds, ordinance will not become law for Punjab. 8. And now form - form for making reference form under Gift- t x Act is Form 1 whereas form employed by revenue is Form 37 prescribed under Income-tax Rules, 1962. Section 26 of said Act requires reference form being made in 'prescribed form'. 9. As already noticed in para 4 above, Punjab High Court has ruled that requirements of section dealing with reference application must be fully satisfied. 10. Privy Council observed in Trustees Corpn. (I) Ltd. v. CIT 4 ITC 378 that 'the High Court will, in future, be well-advised to require before they seek to entertain any questions under section 66 of Indian Income-tax Act that preliminary requirements of section are strictly complied with. And they added: 'The stringency of these requirements is clearly deliberate. It is intention of enactment that High Court is not to be flooded with such applications.' 11. High Court of Lahore (Pak.) upheld rejection of application made by assessee to Tribunal on ground inter alia that not being in prescribed form, application could not be treated as memo of appeal vide Dhanpat Mal Diwan Chand v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 357. High Court invoked rule 13 of Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 in India. 12. Madhya Pradesh High Court emphasised in CIT v. Jiwajirao Sugar Co. Ltd. [1969] 71 ITR 319 that 'before reference can be made, there must be application which is made within period of limitation prescribed under section 66(1)' and went on to say that 'the application itself has to be made in form prescribed by rule 22A of Income-tax Rules.' 13. Calcutta High Court in CIT v. A. K. Das [1970] 77 ITR 31 held that 'if there is no application in prescribed form within period of limitation mentioned in section 256(1) read with proviso, Appellate Tribunal cannot entertain any other application to make reference to High Court. 14. Revenue not having complied with requirements of section 26 read with rule and Form 1, and application is non est. 15. It remains to be examined, if section 41C of Gift-tax Act saves application. section is reproduced below for ready reference: 'No return of gifts, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding, furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of provisions of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission, if such return of gifts, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding, if such return of gifts, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to intent and purpose of this Act.' This section corresponds to section 292B of Income-tax Act, 1961, and scope of latter and its application have been discussed in some decisions which show that its scope is limited. In one of such decision, issue was validity of appeal filed by revenue against dead person. accepting preliminary objection of assessee's counsel, Amritsar Bench of Tribunal dismisses appeal as incompetent being nullity. Revenue's plea that section 292B would save appeal, did not cut ice with Tribunal. There respondent was dead; here applicant is person totally unconcerned. case is ITO v. Kamla Vati [1980] 9 TLR 106. 16. In Laxmi Bank Ltd. v. ITO [1985] 12 ITD 175, Nagpur Bench of Tribunal vacated decision of Commissioner (Appeals) and held that order of penalty made under section 273(2) (a) could not be sustained where ITO had given 'show-cause notice' to assessee under section 273(2) (aa) . Negative plea of revenue that section 292B would save order, Tribunal remarked that mistake to fall within ambit of that section 'is one which happens casually and it should be mistake, pure and simple'. Thus like section 292B of Income-tax Act, section 41C of Gift-tax Act would take care of casual mistake but does not condone casual attitudes. According to Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, 'mistake' means 'a taking or understanding wrongly'. department with mighty organisation and staffed with galaxy of experts could certainly be under no illusion as to form in which reference application was to be moved. Use of Form No. 37, therefore, is no mistake. It is likely to be result of casual attitude to requirements of statute and such situation is not covered by section 41C. If it were to be held otherwise, part of statute loses its sanctity and tomorrow assessee may send letter to his ITO saying that his income is Rs. 20,000 and claim that that must be regarded as his return; another person may scribble Rs. 20,000 on form of gift-tax return and say that that is his income-tax return. Public policy is to promote regard and not disregard for law of land. 17. few more decisions may be cited to show that Courts have not agreed to treat absence of action as, if it was taken, which one might be tempted to think it does, taking advantage of word 'omission' in section 292 of Income-tax Act and section 41C of Gift-tax Act. In Umashankar Mishra v. CIT [1982] 136 ITR 330 (MP), issue was validity of notice which ITO had not signed. High Court held that notice was invalid notwithstanding section 292B. Similarly in CIT v. Smt. Phoolwati [1983] 144 ITR 954, Allahabad High Court held that section 292B did not come to rescue of department where it had omitted to issue notice to minor through his father, though it had issued one to his mother in her own right. It observed that when statute required that something shall be done in particular manner or form, without expressly declaring what shall be consequence of non-compliance, omission of not doing that in manner prescribed in some case has been held fatal to its validity ....' (p. 958). Just as in those two cases, section 292B did not save omission to sign notice and to issue notice, in instant case, omission to employ prescribed form altogether as distinguished from failure to conform to form here and there, is not saved by section 41C. It may be pointed out that there are two requirements in Form No. 1 of Gift- tax Rules which are not there in Form No. 37, of Income-tax Rules. In title, assessment year is to be mentioned and application is to be dated. 16-4-1986 Sd/ - Bhim Sain" Reply of learned senior departmental representative submitted on behalf of revenue is given below: "The respondent has contested reference application filed by department on following two points - 1. reference application is signed by Commissioner of Income-tax while reference is against gift-tax order and should have been signed by Commissioner of Gift-tax. 2. That reference application has been filed on Form No. 37 which is to be used in reference application for income-tax while it should have been filed by corresponding form for gift-tax (Form No. 1). Reply 1 - In this respect, it is submitted that plea of respondent is not correct. In instant case, reference is filed by same officer who is Commissioner of Income-tax and also Commissioner of Gift-tax. necessary change as to designation has been duly made while signing reference application. Moreover, statement of facts attached to reference application is duly signed by him as Commissioner of Gift-tax. Even otherwise it has been held by various High Courts that description of appellant is not fatal but only irregularity which can be amended. decision of Punjab High Court in Gian Chand Vir Bhan v. CIT [1960] 39 ITR 414 and Patna High Court in Gouri Kumari Devi v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 220 are relevant on point. Addl. CIT v. K. Padmalochan Sahu (1974) 95 ITR 113 (Orissa) is another judgment favouring department. Reply 2 - In this respect, it is submitted that contents of both forms are materially same. Commissioner of Gift-tax has been approached to sign application in proper form meant for gift-tax reference application and this will be filed very shortly. Kindly attention of Hon'ble Tribunal is invited to judgments in Behari Lal Laxmi Narain v. ITO [1960] 39 ITR 649 (All.) where it has been held that petition filed on wrong form can be rectified and revised application will be substituted and it will have effect from date when original petition was filed. provision of section 41C of Gift-tax Act also state that proceedings do not invalid in eventuality mentioned above. Submitted please. Sd/ - R. K. Bali" As abovesaid, in addition to written agreements from both sides, except highlighting contents by both parties in their respective written submissions and reliance respectively by both parties on different cases, there was hardly anything left to be mentioned on their respective sides. learned counsel for assessee was very anxious that entire written submission given by him should be considered and since same find place above, submissions of he learned senior departmental representative are also placed above. 4. After taking into consideration rival written submission made by both parties and their respective arguments, we are unable to accept preliminary objection of learned counsel for assessee and direct revenue to file proper application afresh with 15 days from receipt of this order. There is no controversy about fact that on form of application, relevant section of gift-tax pertaining to reference to High Court is missing and instead section 256(1) is mentioned which is in respect of reference to High Court under income-tax matters. heading is also CIT v. Assessee. form is also one which is presbribed under Income-tax Act/Income-tax Rules, 1962. But there is no controversy about fact that said application is signed by CGT and so are statement of facts. This is also fact that Commissioner of Income-tax Shri Balwant Singh is Commissioner of Gift-tax. Apparently from above stated uncontroverted facts, it appears that it is mistake inadvertently committed by revenue. 5. Coming to case law cited by both parties, we find that case applicable on all fours is given by learned senior departmental representative which directly hits preliminary objection of assessee. We shall be failing in our duty in case we don't deal with each and every case cited by two parties and, therefore, first of all we come to Punjab High Court decision in Madam Lal's case (supra). We are of view that same is distinguishable from facts of instant case. In that case reference application under section 66(2) of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was to be filed against Commissioner of Income-tax but assessee had named Tribunal as sole respondent. In that case, while not condoning period of limitation, their Lordships held as under: "... that as only party who should have been named as respondent was not so named application originally filed was meaningless, and as no satisfactory explanation was given for mistake period of limitation could not be extended." (p. 447) In instant case, Commissioner of Income-tax and Commissioner of Gift-tax is one and same person Shri Balwant Singh. mistake, according to us, is not as damaging as it was in said case of Madan Lal (supra). Coming to another Punjab High Court decision in R. B. L. Banarsi Dass & Co. Ltd.'s case (supra), on which reliance was placed by learned counsel for assessee, we are of view that this case does not lend any support to assessee's contention. In this case, assessment was framed by ITO at Amritsar whereas appeal to Tribunal was filed by ITO at Delhi. Here, it was held by High Court that this matter pertains to proper presentation of appeal and goes to very root of case. In instant case, it is not that different person that Commissioner of Income-tax-cum- Commissioner of Gift-tax has filed reference application. instant case is more alike another Punjab High Court decision in Gian Chand Vir Bhan's Case (supra) with which we will be dealing hereafter. Reliance of learned counsel for assessee on Tribunal's decision in Arvind Construction Co. (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) is also misplace. In that case, facts in background were that Tribunal's order was delivered on 19-6-1984 and Commissioner's jurisdiction was transferred under section 127 of Income-tax Act with effect from 1-8-1984 and it was matter in respect of condonation of delay. Reliance of learned counsel of assessee on this case is misplace apparently due to distinction in facts. Next case is that of Allahabad High Court in Sant Baba Mohan Singh's case (supra), on which reliance was placed by learned counsel for assessee. In this case, it was held that assessment proceedings were nullity as ITO had no jurisdiction ab initio to take proceeding. Their Lordships held as under: "... proceeding is nullity when authority taking it has no jurisdiction either because of want of pecuniary jurisdiction or of territorial jurisdiction or of jurisdiction over subject-matter of proceeding ..." (p. 197) In instant case gain facts are different. gentleman signing reference applciation did have jurisdiction as Commissioner of Gift-tax and he signed same as such. He also, therefore, does not support contention of learned counsel for assessee. 6. Coming to improper form learned counsel for assessee had relied on Privy Council's decision in Trustees Corpn. (I.) Ltd.'s case (supra) in which it was held that: "Before question is entertained by High Court under section 66 of Income-tax Act, preliminary statutory requirements thereunder must be strictly complied with." In this very case it was further observed that: "The stringency of these requirements is clearly deliberate. It is intention of enactment that High Court is not to be flooded with such applications." form in instant case is undoubtedly under Income-tax Act. In instant case, there is no controversy about fact that Tribunal never returned said reference application to applicant, as per rule 37 of returned said reference application to applicant, as per rule 37 of Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, which is in respect of procedure under section 256(1) and in which rule 12 of said Rules with other rules has been made applicable mutatis mutandis and said rule 12 reads as under: "The Tribunal may reject memorandum of appeal, if it is not in prescribed form or return it for being amended within such time as it may allow. On representation after such amendment, memorandum shall be signed and dated by officer competent to make endorsement under rule 7." Reliance of learned counsel for assessee in case of CIT v. Jiwajirao Sugar Co. Ltd. [1969] 71 ITR 319 (MP) also apparently becomes misplaced. As per said case, it held that: "... Before reference can be made, there must be application which is made within period of limitation prescribed by section 66(1) ... application itself has to be made in form prescribed by rule 22A of Income-tax Rules, ..." (p. 320) This cannot be read in isolation as there is prescribed rule, extracted and placed above, providing amendment of wrong forms, which was not done in this case by Tribunal's office. Calcutta High Court decision in case of CIT v. A. K. Das [1970] 77 ITR 31 is on period of limitation. In that case, it was held that: "... if there be no applciation in prescribed form within period of limitation mentioned in section 256(1) read with proviso, appellate Tribunal cannot entertain any other application to make reference to High Court ..." (p. 39) This case, to some extent, in first reading seems to lend support to assessee's contention - but firstly it is in respect of condonation of delay and secondly there is Punjab High Court decision in Gian Chand Vir Bhan's case (supra), with which we will be dealing hereafter which on all fours supports contention of learned departmental representative. However, learned counsel for assessee submitted that even section 41C o f Gift-tax Act, 1958 cannot come to rescue of revenue. In this connection, he relied on Tribunal decision in case of ITO v. Smt. Kamla Vati [1980] 9 TLR 106 (Asr,). In that case, it was dead person against whom appeal was filed and then this mistake was considered to be fatal and appeal was held nullity. facts of instant case are apparently different. It is not non est person who has signed. It is same person who is Commissioner of Gift-tax and also Commissioner of Income-tax. He has signed as CGT. Only in heading of application, it is written CIT v. Assessee. This mistake, according to us, is rectifiable. In course of arguments, reliance was also placed on Lahore High Court decision in Dhanpat Mal Diwan Chand's case (supra). BY reading facts of said case, it becomes apparent that it was just distinguishable because in that case in first appeal certain issues were decided by AAC and on certain report was asked for from ITO. After remand report, when AAC decided those issues on which remand report was demanded appeal was filed and in respect of first ground which was held by AAc against assessee, additional grounds were raised. In respect of this application, it was held that it was not in prescribed from of appeal and was not accompanied by fee of Rs. 100. In this case, it was held by their Lordships that: "The Tribunal had discretion to reject application even if it could be treated as memorandum of appeal." (p. 357) Instant case is not that of ordinary application. It was application which was made by Commissioner of Gift-tax, as duly signed by him, relevant contents pertained to gift-tax matter but it was mentioned under Income- tax Act and from side of Commissioner of Income-tax. This is clearly distinguishable, according to us. Similarly, in respect of section 41C , our attention was also drawn to Nagpur Bench decision in case of Laxmi Bank Ltd. v. Second ITO [1985] 12 ITD 175. In that case, it was held that order of penalty under section 273(2) (a) o f Income-tax Act could not be sustained when show-cause notice was in respect of section 273(2) (aa). In this case, it was held by Tribunal that mistake to be rectified should be casual to fall within ambit of that section, i.e., section 292B of Income-tax Act. In instant case, learned counsel for assessee submitted that 'casual' means once in while but department is committing this sort of mistake day means once in while but department is committing this sort of mistake day in and day out was his submission. We are not in agreement with learned counsel for assessee because 'casual' as per Oxford Dictionary means- accidental, irregular, undersigned, unmethodical, careless, unceremonious - and, if that wide is definition, this rather supports contention of revenue. According to Chambers Dictionary, meaning given by learned counsel for assessee himself is 'mistake' means 'a taking or understanding wrongly'. Under circumstances, mistake should have been got rectified by Tribunal. Regarding notice which was not signed by ITO, it was held by High Court to be invalid in Umashankar Mishra v. CIT [1982] 136 ITR 330 (MP), distinction is more than clear because here reference application is duly signed and by right petition. Similarly, reliance is also misplace on CIT v. Smt. Phoolmati Devi [1983] 144 ITR 954 (All.), where notice was issued to father on behalf of minor instead of having been issued to mother. 7. After we have met catena of judgments relied upon by learned counsel for assessee, we now come to Punjab High Court decision in Gian Chand Vir Bhan's case (supra) which, according to us, is applicable to instant case on all fours in favour of revenue. In this case, Mr. V. was member of HUF and also partner of firm, V signed memo of appeal s karta of HUF whereas appeal was preferred by firm and he should have signed it as partner. Tribunal dismissed said appeal as incompetent on ground that he did style himself as member of firm. Their Lordships of High Court held as under: "... that whether as representative of family or as representative of firm, V was competent to prefer appeal before Appellate Tribunal. As memorandum of appeal was signed by V, who was competent to sing it in either capacity, Tribunal was wrong in dismissing appeal in limine. At worst, words describing V as member of firm could only be deemed to be misdescription and for such misdescription right of appeal could not be taken away." (p. 415) From above finding, it is clear that this case is applicable in instant case on all fours, as abovesaid. On other hand, instant case is on ker footing. Shri Balwant Singh who is Commissioner of Gift-tax preferred reference application under Gift-tax Act, signed it as such with statement of facts, but on heading of application it was mentioned Commissioner of Income-tax and also form was under section 256(1) instead of relevant section under Gift-tax Act. Even, misdescription on heading or section could not be fatal to revenue's case. Allahabad High Court decision in Behari Lal Laxminarain v. ITO [1960] 39 ITR 649 regarding prescribed form, also supports contention of revenue. In that case, memo of appeal was found to be defective inasmuch as, it was not in prescribed form, also supports contention of revenue. In that case, memo of appeal was found to be defective inasmuch as, it was not in prescribed form and was not filed in triplicate. It was neither rejected nor returned, but defects were pointed out to assessee who rectified defects and filed proper memorandum in triplicate subsequently with application for admission of appeal. Tribunal admitted same and High Court held that same appeal was not out of time. In instant case, defect was undoubtedly pointed out to learned senior departmental representative on earlier hearing but as he admitted in open Court, it was due to his mistake that proper application could not be filed duly signed by right authority under right caption in right and prescribed form because of his mistake. Day in and day out, benefits and granted to assessee as they are not required to suffer due to mistake of lawyers, once in while departmental representative has committed mistake which he admits as gentleman in Court, revenue should not be made to suffer due to mistake of its representative. Patna High Court in case of Gouri Kumari Devi v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 220 held on facts of case where memorandum of appeal signed by power of attorney agent was originally presented in time but when after period of limitation had expired and it was subsequently amended by filing fresh memorandum of appeal signed by proper appellant, it was held that there was proper appeal presented before Tribunal and appeal could not be dismissed on ground that is was barred by time. In light of this judgment, we have granted period of 15 days to revenue to file fresh application in correct form and correct heading while disposing of preliminary objection against assessee and keeping our order on reference application pending. Orissa High Court again held in case of Addl. CIT v. K. Padmalochan Sahu [1974] 95 ITR 113, where memo of appeal by assessee - HUF not signed by karta could be allowed to be rectified, their Lordships held that: "... in appeal by Hindu undivided family should be signed by karta of family is mandatory, but any illegality should be allowed to be rectified by giving proper opportunity to assessee." (p. 114) 8. In light of above discussion, we dismiss preliminary objection of assessee and direct revenue to modify reference application within 15 days from date of receipt of this order, which will be heard on merit, if and when same is received. *** COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. SMT. RANJANA KUMARI