Liberal construction of sufficient cause supports condonation where illness is shown and uncontroverted evidence remains unrebutted.

Delay in filing a second appeal was held liable to condonation where the assessee supported the application with an affidavit and medical certificate showing that the person conducting the case was ill and confined to bed. In the absence of any counter-affidavit or rebuttal evidence, the facts were not displaced. The court found that rejection of the medical certificate merely because some writing appeared in a different ink was insufficient to disbelieve the supporting material. The expression "sufficient cause" was to receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice and avoid shutting out a hearing on merits on conjecture, so the appeal could not be treated as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the second appeal was liable to be condoned on the facts shown by the assessee.

Analysis: The application for condonation was supported by an affidavit and a medical certificate explaining that the person conducting the case was ill and confined to bed. No counter-affidavit or rebuttal evidence was filed to dispute those facts. The rejection of the medical certificate rested mainly on the circumstance that some writing appeared in a different ink, which by itself was held insufficient to disbelieve the certificate or the affidavit. The expression "sufficient cause" was to receive a liberal construction so that substantial justice is advanced and a hearing on merits is not shut out on conjecture.

Conclusion: The delay ought to have been condoned and the appeal could not be dismissed as time-barred.

---