Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause; mere inadvertence and another pending proceeding do not excuse a time-barred appeal.

Condonation of delay requires a specific and credible explanation for the entire period of delay, and a bare plea of inadvertence is insufficient without showing how the administrative lapse occurred. Although a Government department may receive liberal consideration, it must still disclose sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time. Pending a similar question in another proceeding does not, by itself, justify filing a time-barred appeal. On the facts stated, the 133-day delay was not supported by sufficient cause, and refusal to condone the delay was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether delay of 133 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal ought to have been condoned on the ground of inadvertence and pendency of a similar question in another proceeding.

Analysis: Condonation of delay requires a showing of sufficient cause explaining the period of delay. Liberal treatment may be available to Government departments, but the applicant must still disclose how the delay occurred and why the appeal was not filed within time. A bare assertion of inadvertence, without explanation of the administrative delay, is not enough. The pendency of a similar reference or proceeding in another case does not by itself justify condonation of delay in a time-barred appeal.

Conclusion: The delay was not shown to be supported by sufficient cause, and the refusal to condone it was upheld.

---