1967 (11) TMI 25

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al not relevant to the enquiry ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board was justified in refusing to admit the appeal ? " The facts as given in 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, 1934. Kunwar Madan Mohan Singh is the accountable person of the estate of the deceased Hari Har Bux Singh. 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, Varanasi, after giving Kunwar Madan Mohan Singh an opportunity of being heard, determined the princ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ounsel. It is clearly stated in the written submissions that on the 23rd July, 1960, Kunwar Madan Mohan Singh was suddenly taken ill with typhoid and remained unconscious for a period of one full month from 23rd July, 1960, and that when his mental balance was restored to him, he sent his brother (Kunwar Madan Mohan Singh being adopted in a different family) to his counsel in Delhi with necessary papers to file the appeal. The Board of Revenue, while dealing which the question that the delay had been sufficiently explained, observed as under : " While I may accept the evidence about the illness, there is nothing to show why the appellant should have delayed matters so long and left it to the end of the limitation period for filing the ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ain the dely 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 the 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 o....