Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause for late filing, not explanation for the entire limitation period.

Delay in filing an appeal may be condoned where sufficient cause is shown for not presenting it within the prescribed time, and the enquiry is limited to the delay beyond limitation. The Board of Revenue applied the wrong test by requiring explanation for inaction throughout the entire limitation period and by relying on irrelevant considerations. The correct approach, analogous to section 5 of the Limitation Act, is to assess whether the delay itself is satisfactorily explained. On that basis, refusal to admit the appeal was unsustainable and the delay was liable to be excused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Board of Revenue was liable to be condoned on the facts stated, and whether the Board erred in rejecting the request for admission of the appeal.

Analysis: Under section 63(2) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the Board could admit an appeal after expiry of limitation if sufficient cause for not presenting it within time was shown. The Board proceeded on an erroneous view that the appellant had to explain his inaction during the whole period from the original order up to the last day of limitation, instead of examining whether there was sufficient cause for the delayed filing beyond the prescribed period. The Board also relied on considerations not relevant to the enquiry and failed to apply the correct legal test for condonation of delay, which is analogous to section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act.

Conclusion: The delay was liable to be excused, and the Board was not justified in refusing to admit the appeal. The reference was answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.

Ratio Decidendi: For condonation of delay, the applicant must show sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period; non-diligence for the entire limitation period does not by itself defeat a request for condonation, and refusal based on irrelevant considerations or a mistaken legal standard is unsustainable.

---