Condonation of delay requires credible proof of sufficient cause; inconsistent medical explanations justified refusal to condone delay.

Condonation of delay in filing first appeals depends on proof of sufficient cause, and inconsistent explanations about the period of treatment and discharge from hospital may undermine that claim. The statutory authorities found that the explanation did not inspire confidence and that no proper or sufficient reason was established for the belated filing. As the question of sufficient cause was treated as essentially factual, no error of law was found in the Tribunal's concurrence with the refusal to condone delay, and the dismissal of the appeals was not interfered with.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee had shown sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing the first appeals.

Analysis: The assessee advanced inconsistent explanations at different stages regarding the period of treatment and the date of discharge from hospital. The statutory authorities found that the explanation did not inspire confidence and that no proper or sufficient reason was proved for the belated filing. The question of sufficient cause was treated as essentially factual, and no error of law was found in the Tribunal's concurrence with the refusal to condone delay.

Conclusion: The delay was not liable to be condoned and the refusal to interfere with the dismissal of the appeals was upheld.

---