Condonation of delay in income-tax litigation refused where the explanation was inconsistent, belated, and lacked sufficient cause.

Delay in filing the income-tax appeal and review petition was not condoned because the explanation offered was belated, inconsistent with the court record, and unsupported by a bona fide account of events. The appeal had already been dismissed for non-removal of office objections, yet the review petition was filed much later and also suffered from avoidable procedural default. The court reiterated that governmental bodies are equally bound by limitation law, and that routine administrative delay or casual conduct does not amount to sufficient cause. The request for condonation therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the income-tax appeal and the review petition was liable to be condoned on the basis of sufficient cause.

Analysis: The explanation for delay was found to be belated, inconsistent with the court record, and unsupported by a bona fide account of the relevant events. The record showed that the appeal had already been dismissed for non-removal of office objections, yet the review petition was filed much later and also suffered from avoidable procedural default. In the absence of a credible and acceptable explanation, and in view of the principle that governmental bodies are equally bound by limitation law, the Court held that routine administrative delay and casual conduct do not constitute sufficient cause.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the request for condonation failed.

---