KUNWAR MADAN MOHAN SINGH Vs. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has been made to this court under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the following two questions of law have been submitted to this court for its opinion :

(2.) THE facts as given the statement of the case are : Hari Har Bux Singh was the Taluqedar and proprietor of Dhanawa and Dherhiyari Estate in Gonda district. He died on the 17th of September, 1954. Kunwar Madan Mohan Singh is the accountable person of the estate of the deceased Hari Har Bux Sigh. Kunwar Madan Mohan Singh did not file a valid account of the property in respect of the estate of Hari Har Bux Singh under section 53(3) of the Act. THE Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Variance, after giving Kunwar Madan Mohan Singh an opportunity of being heard, determined the principal value of the estate of Hari Har Bux Singh, deceased, at Rs. 6,72,849 (net) and imposed a duty of Rs. 85,819.80 nP. Kunwar Madan Mohan Singh filed an appeal in the Central Board of Revenue by post. THE appeal was received in the office of the Board of Revenue on the 23rd of August, 1960. THE period of limitation for the filing of the appeal was up to the 3rd of August, 1960. On an enquiry from the Board of Revenue as to why the appeal had been filed beyond the period of limitation, Kunwar Madan Mohan Singh submitted written submission on the 27th of October, 1960, explaining the delay in the filing of the appeal.

(3.) THE provision is analogous to section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. We have extracted from the order of the Board of Revenue the passage dealing with the question as to whether delay had been sufficiently explained or not. THE Board of Revenue has proceeded on an assumption that Kunwar Madan Mohan Singh had to show as to why he delayed matters up to the end of June or 23rd of July, 1960. In other words, the Board of Revenue wanted Kunwar Madan Mohan Singh to explain the delay of every day falling in the period commencing from the date of the order of the Assistant Controller and ending with the 3rd of August, 1960. In doing so, the Board of Revenue has misconceived the legal position. It is well-settled that the failure of appellant to account for his non diligence during the whole of the period of limitation prescribed for the delay for the appeal does not disqualify him from praying for the condonation of delay under section 5. Where the appellant did not file the appeal till the last day of limitation, and as he fell ill on the last day of limitation filed the appeal thereafter asking for the delay to be excused, it was held by the Supreme Court that his want of diligence till the last day of limitation would not disqualify him from applying for the excusing of delay (See Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd.). It is clear that the Board of Revenue has misconceived the law and has decided the question as to whether Kunwar Madan Mohan Singh had or had not sufficient cause for filling the appeal belatedly, wrongly, and on considerations not relevant for the decision of the question. We therefore, answer question No. 1 in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the department.