AJIT K. SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) IN this reference under Section 64 (1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the following question of law has been referred to this court:"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the proviso to Section 62 (1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty was not justified in entertaining the appeal filed by the accountable person and in restoring the penalty imposed by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty ?" ( 2 ) SHORTLY stated, the facts are that the accountable person was required to pay a sum of Rs. 57,239 by way of estate duty under a notice of demand served on the accountable person on February 10, 1976. The amount of the estate duty was required to be paid on or before March 4, 1976. On an application made by the accountable person, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty allowed the accountable person to pay the estate duty in instalments on the dates specified by him in this behalf. As the accountable person failed to pay the estate duty in accordance with the aforesaid scheme, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 on February 1, 1977 under Section 46 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, read with Section 73 (5) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. ( 3 ) THE accountable person filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of penalty before the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty on March 10, 1977. Before the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, it was pointed out that a sum of Rs. 10,000 had been paid by the accountable person on February 9, 1977. It was contended before the Appellate Controller that the accountable person fully co-operated with the Department and that the entire estate duty had been paid before the appeal was heard by the Appellate Controller. The delay in payment was explained as being due to financial difficulty on the part of the accountable person. The Appellate Controller of Estate Duty accepted the contention of the accountable person and cancelled the penalty imposed by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty. ( 4 ) THE Department filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal challenging the order of the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty on two grounds. The Appellate Controller of Estate Duty accepted the contention of the accountable person and cancelled the penalty imposed by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty. ( 4 ) THE Department filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal challenging the order of the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty on two grounds. ( 5 ) THE first ground raised was that the Appellate Controller of Estate, Duty had erred in holding that the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty was not justified in imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000 under Section 46 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as applicable to the Estate Duty Act by Section 73 (5) of the later enactment. The second ground raised was that, in entertaining the appeal filed by the accountable person against the imposition of the aforesaid penalty, the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty had contravened the provisions contained in the proviso to Section 62 (1) of the Estate Duty Act and had, therefore, acted beyond his jurisdiction. As the second ground raised in the departmental appeal went to the very root of the jurisdiction of the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, the Appellate Tribunal first dealt with this ground. The Tribunal observed that, according to the proviso to Section 62 (1) of the Estate Duty Act, unless the duty has been paid before the appeal is filed, the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty could not entertain the appeal. Since, admittedly, the accountable person did not pay the estate duty in full, the Appellate Controller was not justified in entertaining the appeal filed by the accountable person. The Tribunal, accordingly, cancelled the order of the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty and restored the penalty imposed by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty. As the order of the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty was cancelled by the Tribunal on this preliminary ground, the Tribunal did not consider it necessary to deal with the first ground of the departmental appeal relating to the merits of the penalty imposed by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duly. On the aforesaid facts, the question as hereinbefore set out has been referred to this court. ( 6 ) THE issue is whether the Appellate Controller was competent to entertain the appeal and dispose of the same on merits although the assessee did not make the payment of the entire estate duty when the appeal was filed. On the aforesaid facts, the question as hereinbefore set out has been referred to this court. ( 6 ) THE issue is whether the Appellate Controller was competent to entertain the appeal and dispose of the same on merits although the assessee did not make the payment of the entire estate duty when the appeal was filed. In our view, the Tribunal in this case has taken too technical a view of the matter. The Assistant Controller himself allowed the accountable person to pay the estate duty by instalments. No doubt the accountable person defaulted in making the payment in instalments but the fact remains that the accountable person had paid the entire duty before the Appellate Controller heard the appeal on January 3, 1990. It is true that, on the date the appeal was preferred by the assessee, he might not have paid the entire estate duty payable by him but since the entire demand had been paid before the appeal was heard, the question of maintainability of the appeal lost its significance. On the date of hearing of the appeal, the assessee had in fact complied with the mandate of the proviso to Section 62 (1 ). Our attention has been drawn to the case of Navin Chandra Bhimji v. CED [1979] 116 ITR 465, where this court held that that the provision relating to the payment of duty prior to the filing of an appeal as contained in Section 62 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, is an independent provision not dependent on Section 46 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. This decision has ho application to the facts of this case. ( 7 ) THE provisions of appeal should be liberally interpreted. On the day when the appeal was filed, it could not be entertained as the duty had not been paid before the appeal was filed. The Appellate Controller is empowered under Section 62 (2) to admit the appeal after the expiry of 30 days, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. The appeal, even if presented, will not be entertained till the duty is paid. Even assuming that the appeal could not be presented before payment of duty, when the duty was paid, the appeal became competent subject to the condonation of the delay. The appeal, even if presented, will not be entertained till the duty is paid. Even assuming that the appeal could not be presented before payment of duty, when the duty was paid, the appeal became competent subject to the condonation of the delay. The Appellate Controller, having entertained the appeal after the duty is paid, must be deemed to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal as the accountable person was in financial difficulty. In a case where the accountable person does not pay the entire duty when the appeal is presented to save the period of limitation but, ultimately, before the appeal is entertained and heard, the entire duty is paid, in such a case it cannot be said that the appeal is not competent. That is what has been done in this particular case. We are of the view that the Appellate Controller rightly entertained the appeal. ( 8 ) WE, therefore, answer the question in the negative and in favour of the accountable person. The Tribunal will dispose of the case on the merits of imposition of penalty.