Condonation of delay in appeal cannot be refused where consultant negligence is unproved and the appellant acted with due engagement.

Delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal was wrongly refused to be condoned where the appeal was dismissed solely on limitation and the delay was attributed to negligence of the consultant. The Court noted that the appellant had engaged the consultant and there was no material showing any failure on the appellant's part to give instructions for filing the appeal. In these circumstances, the refusal to condone 132 days' delay was held unsustainable, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the appeal was directed to be admitted and decided on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 132 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal ought to have been condoned.

Analysis: The appeal had been dismissed only on the ground of delay. The Tribunal refused to condone the delay by attributing it to negligence of the consultant. Considering the extent of delay and the absence of any indication of negligence on the part of the appellant, who had engaged the consultant and had not been shown to have failed to give instructions to file the appeal, the refusal to condone the delay was held unsustainable.

Conclusion: The delay was liable to be condoned, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the appeal was directed to be admitted and heard on merits.

---