Liberal condonation of delay upheld where bona fide explanation and continuous prosecution showed sufficient cause for late appeal filing.

Delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal was accepted as sufficiently explained where the officer handling the matter had sought resignation during the proceedings, remained involved for the personal hearing, and was relieved only later. The Court treated these facts, together with the assessee's continuous pursuit of the matter before the lower authorities, as a bona fide explanation constituting sufficient cause. Applying a liberal approach to condonation and preferring substantial justice over technical objections, the delay was condoned and the Tribunal's refusal to condone was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was liable to be condoned on showing sufficient cause.

Analysis: The explanation for the delay was that the officer handling the matter had sought resignation before the appellate proceedings concluded, remained involved in the case for the personal hearing, and was relieved only later. The Court treated these facts, together with the appellant's continuous prosecution of the matter before the authorities below, as a bona fide explanation constituting sufficient cause. Applying the liberal approach to delay condonation and preferring substantial justice over technical objections, the Court found that the delay ought to be condoned.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned in favour of the assessee and the Tribunal's order refusing condonation was set aside.

---