Condonation of delay under the Limitation Act: wrong legal advice can amount to sufficient cause when the explanation is plausible.

Delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 may be condoned on sufficient cause, assessed flexibly on the facts of each case with due regard to diligence, control over the delay, and the length of delay. Where the explanation is plausible and shows that the litigant acted on wrong legal advice, condonation may be justified. On the stated facts, the 70-day delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was found satisfactorily explained, so refusal to condone was unsustainable and the delay was liable to be condoned.

---

---

Issues: Whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of the 70-day delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal under the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The governing principle under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is that delay may be condoned where sufficient cause is shown. The expression is elastic and has to be applied on the facts of each case. A liberal approach is ordinarily adopted where the delay is short, while the enquiry remains whether the litigant acted with due care and diligence and whether the delay was beyond control. On the facts, the explanation that the appellant was wrongly advised regarding the applicable period of limitation was found plausible and sufficient.

Conclusion: The delay was liable to be condoned and the refusal to condone it was unsustainable. The issue is answered in favour of the assessee.

---