Condonation of delay refused where bona fide mistake and later legal advice did not justify a belated first appeal.

A delay of one year five months and eighteen days in filing the first appeal was not condoned because the assessee's claim of bona fide belief about taxability, followed by later legal advice, did not constitute sufficient cause. The first appellate authority found no subsequent change in law to support the belated challenge, and the Tribunal agreed that the explanation was inadequate. On these facts, the refusal to condone delay was justified and called for no interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of one year five months and eighteen days in filing the first appeal deserved condonation on the ground that the assessee had acted under a bona fide impression about the taxability of the turnover and later sought to rely on a subsequent legal view.

Analysis: The first appellate authority rejected the explanation for delay after finding that there was no subsequent change in law to justify the belated appeal. The Tribunal affirmed that view. The explanation that the assessee initially believed the assessment to be correct, and later obtained legal advice to the contrary, was held insufficient to show a valid reason for the long delay. On the facts, the refusal to condone delay was found to be justified and required no interference.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the first appeal was not liable to be condoned.

---