Delay condonation requires credible explanation, diligence and supporting material; counsel's default alone was insufficient on these facts.

Revision applications under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 had to be filed within 60 days, and a delayed filing could be entertained only on a credible explanation showing diligence and absence of negligence. The petitioners did not substantiate the steps said to have been taken for restoration, produced no supporting material, left material dates vague, and gave no explanation for the period after knowledge of dismissal or the further delay after the cease-work period ended. A bare plea that the default was due to previous counsel was insufficient on these facts, and the request for condonation was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the revision applications under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 should be condoned.

Analysis: The statutory scheme contemplated filing within 60 days, and a belated application could be entertained only on a credible and acceptable explanation showing diligence and absence of negligence. The petitioners failed to substantiate the asserted steps for restoration, did not produce supporting materials, left material dates vague, and did not explain the period after knowledge of dismissal or the further delay after the cease-work period ended. The mere plea that the default was attributable to previous counsel was not sufficient on the facts found, especially when the conduct of the petitioners themselves did not show due care or promptness.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the application for condonation was rejected.

---