Condonation of delay turns on bona fide explanation supported by contemporaneous records, not on defeating substantive rights through limitation.

Delay in filing an appeal may be condoned where the applicant shows a bona fide and satisfactorily explained cause supported by contemporaneous material. The appellant's repeated correspondence seeking correction of the order through a corrigendum explained the 105-day delay, and the record did not show deliberate, mala fide, or negligent conduct. Failure by the Tribunal to consider the affidavit and supporting letters meant the explanation for delay was not properly assessed. Limitation is meant to regulate remedies, not defeat substantive rights where sufficient cause is established, so the delay ought to have been condoned.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of a 105 days' delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The communications between the appellant and the department showed that the appellant had repeatedly sought correction of the order through a corrigendum before resorting to the appellate remedy. The delay was thus explained by contemporaneous correspondence and was not shown to be deliberate, mala fide, or lacking diligence. The Tribunal did not advert to the affidavit and supporting letters explaining the delay. Limitation is intended to regulate remedies and not to defeat substantive rights where a satisfactory explanation exists.

Conclusion: Sufficient cause was established and the delay ought to have been condoned in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay in preferring an appeal deserves condonation where the applicant furnishes a bona fide and satisfactorily explained cause supported by contemporaneous material, and the conduct does not show wilful negligence or mala fides.

---