Limitation and penalty for incorrect declaration: time-barred appeal sustained, but penalty set aside for inadequate factual basis and remand.

The first appeal was upheld as time-barred because the appellants did not produce material to show a later date of communication and did not seek condonation of delay, so summary rejection under the limitation rules was justified. The penalty for filing an incorrect or incomplete declaration was set aside because the record did not establish the statutory ingredients, including knowing filing of an incorrect declaration, proper hearing, or judicial reasons supporting the maximum penalty; the matter was remanded for fresh inquiry and disposal according to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the first appeal was rightly rejected as barred by limitation and summarily dismissed under the rules; (ii) whether the penalty imposed for filing an incorrect or incomplete declaration was sustainable and whether its quantum was properly determined.

Issue (i): Whether the first appeal was rightly rejected as barred by limitation and summarily dismissed under the rules.

Analysis: The appellate authority relied on the office record showing communication of the original order on 5 March 1975, while the appellants failed to place material before the first appellate authority to establish a later date of communication or to seek condonation of delay. In the absence of any application for condonation, the authority was justified in proceeding on the basis of the record and treating the appeal as time-barred.

Conclusion: The summary rejection of the first appeal on the ground of limitation was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed for filing an incorrect or incomplete declaration was sustainable and whether its quantum was properly determined.

Analysis: Penalty under the relevant provision requires a finding that the person knowingly filed an incorrect or incomplete declaration, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The record did not show how the declarations were incomplete, how knowledge was attributed, or what judicial reasons justified imposition of the maximum penalty in every case. The explanation offered in one case was not duly examined, and the material necessary to support the penalty had not been properly ascertained.

Conclusion: The penalty orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for fresh inquiry and disposal according to law.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the penalty succeeded to the extent that the orders of penalty were vacated, while the finding that the first appeal was time-barred remained undisturbed, and the cases were sent back for reconsideration on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty for filing an incorrect or incomplete declaration cannot stand unless the record establishes the statutory ingredients and the quantum is supported by judicially relevant reasons; where the factual basis is inadequate, the matter must be remanded for fresh determination.

---