Condonation of inordinate delay requires credible, particularised evidence; a vague illness plea was found insufficient.

Condonation of inordinate delay depends on the facts of each case, but "sufficient cause" must be shown with definite averments and credible material to advance substantial justice. A vague plea that the person handling tax matters was ill, without particulars of the period, nature of illness, or supporting evidence, was held insufficient to show that the delay was unavoidable despite due care and caution. On that basis, the explanation was found lacking in credibility and diligence, and the delay was refused to be condoned.

---

---

Issues: Whether sufficient cause was shown for condonation of the inordinate delay of 789 days in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority.

Analysis: Condonation of delay depends on the facts of each case and the expression "sufficient cause" must be applied so as to advance substantial justice. However, where the delay is inordinate, the explanation must be supported by definite averments and credible material. A general plea of illness of the person handling taxation matters, without particulars as to the period, nature of illness, or supporting evidence, does not establish that the delay was unavoidable despite due care and caution. In the absence of substantive proof, the explanation lacked credibility and diligence.

Conclusion: The delay was not satisfactorily explained and was rightly refused to be condoned; the appeal failed on limitation.

---