Condonation of delay fails where explanations are unsatisfactory and the factual finding on sufficient cause is not perverse.

The Tribunal's refusal to condone delay was upheld because the assessee's explanations for late filing were found unsatisfactory and its stand remained inconsistent, including a claim that the appeals were within time while also seeking condonation. On the materials, the finding that sufficient cause had not been shown was not perverse, and no question of law arose from that conclusion.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was wrong in holding that there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeals.

Analysis: The assessee sought condonation of delay but the explanations placed before the Tribunal were found unsatisfactory. The finding was also influenced by the assessee's inconsistent stand that the appeals were within time, despite seeking condonation on the basis of delay. On the materials, the Tribunal's conclusion that sufficient cause had not been shown was not shown to be perverse.

Conclusion: The finding of the Tribunal rejecting condonation of delay was upheld, and no question of law arose from that conclusion.

---