Condonation of delay turned on facts and probabilities, and the Tribunal was justified in treating the assessee as negligent.

A short delay in filing a second appeal was not enough by itself to justify condonation where the assessee failed to file a supporting condonation application with the appeal and later produced affidavit and medical evidence without explaining why the appeal was not dispatched in time. The Court held that sufficient cause depended on the facts and circumstances, and that the Tribunal could assess the material on probabilities. On those facts, negligence and want of bona fides were attributable to the assessee, so the Tribunal was justified in refusing to condone the delay.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was negligent in not preferring the appeal in time and in refusing to condone the delay.

Analysis: The delay in filing the second appeal was only four days, but the assessee did not accompany the memo of appeal with any application for condonation supported by affidavit or medical evidence. The Tribunal examined the affidavit and medical certificate filed later and found that the appeal had been prepared during the period of illness, yet no explanation was offered for the failure to dispatch it within time. The absence of a rebuttal by the department did not compel acceptance of the material produced by the assessee. The Court held that whether sufficient cause existed depended on the facts and circumstances of the case, that negligence and want of bona fides were attributable to the assessee, and that the Tribunal's assessment of the material on probabilities was proper.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was justified in treating the assessee as negligent and in refusing to condone the delay; the question was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

---