Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause; unsupported illness claim and missing evidence led to dismissal of the appeal.

Delay in filing an appeal was not condoned where the explanation relied on illness of a partner's son, but the medical certificate did not show when the illness began or ended. The appellant produced no evidence of what prevented timely filing or what steps were taken during the delay. The Tribunal held that condonation is a discretionary remedy to be exercised fairly and on the facts of each case, and that sufficient cause must be established; mere technical objections cannot justify relief. The appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 97 days in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The explanation for delay was based on illness of the partner's son, supported by a medical certificate that did not state when the illness began or when it ended. No evidence was produced to show what prevented the appellant from filing the appeal within time or what steps were taken during the period of delay. The Tribunal held that discretionary relief must be exercised fairly and logically on the facts of each case, and that mere technical objections do not justify condonation where sufficient cause is not established.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the appeal was dismissed.

---