Condonation of delay accepted where the explanation was plausible and merits-based adjudication would otherwise be defeated, subject to costs.

Delay in filing appeals against revisional orders may be condoned where the explanation is credible and refusal would defeat adjudication on merits. The Court accepted that labour unrest and related litigation had affected access to premises and records, and noted that the petitioner had pursued other tax proceedings diligently, which supported the claim that the impugned orders were not knowingly ignored. Although the delay was substantial and the conduct was negligent, it was not so culpable as to justify shutting out merits. The delay was condoned, the appeals were permitted to proceed, and costs were imposed to balance equities.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeals against the revisional orders should be condoned.

Analysis: The delay was substantial, but the explanation placed before the Court showed that the petitioner had been involved in labour unrest and other litigation affecting access to the premises and records. The Court also noted that the petitioner had pursued other tax proceedings diligently, which supported the explanation that the impugned orders were not knowingly ignored. The Court held that the conduct, though negligent, was not so culpable as to justify shutting out adjudication on merits. To balance equities, the Court considered that the respondent should be compensated by costs.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned, and the petitioner was permitted to prosecute the appeals on merits, subject to payment of costs.

Final Conclusion: The refusal to condone delay was set aside, the writ petition succeeded, and the matter was sent back for decision of the tax appeals on merits after payment of costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay may be condoned where the explanation is acceptable and substantial justice would be defeated by a technical refusal, provided the opposite party is compensated by appropriate costs.

---