Condonation of delay in appeal restoration accepted where procedural lapse was explained and prejudice favoured restoration.

Delay of 2,046 days in seeking restoration of an appeal was condoned because the lapse stemmed from belated removal of office objections and not from any clandestine or mala fide conduct. The Court accepted that the assessee had shown an intention to prosecute the matter, including by engaging counsel, and treated the explanation for the delay as reasonable. Balancing prejudice to both sides, it held that dismissal would cause greater harm to the revenue than condonation would cause to the respondent, and accordingly restored the appeal to file in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 2046 days in moving for restoration of the appeal should be condoned and the appeal restored to file.

Analysis: The delay arose from a procedural lapse in the removal of office objections and the consequent dismissal of the appeal under the High Court Rules. The record showed that the objections were in fact removed belatedly, without any clandestine or mala fide conduct, and the assessee had taken steps indicating an intention to prosecute the appeal, including engaging counsel. The Court also weighed the competing prejudice to both sides and found that dismissal of the appeal would cause greater harm to the revenue than condonation would cause to the respondent. The explanation for the delay was therefore accepted as reasonable.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the appeal was ordered to be restored, in favour of the assessee.

---