Bona fide pursuit of remedies may justify condonation of delay and exclusion of time, keeping the appeal alive on merits.

Bona fide pursuit of successive remedies on legal advice may constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay, especially where the same cause of action was continuously pursued. Time spent in such bona fide proceedings may be treated as excludable in principle under section 14 of the Limitation Act, supporting restoration of the appeal for determination on merits rather than rejection on limitation alone. The stated approach favours preservation of the right of appeal where the delay is explained by continued legal proceedings and the controversy can still be adjudicated in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 890 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was liable to be condoned and the appeal restored for decision on merits.

Analysis: The assessee had been pursuing successive remedies on legal advice and the delay was attributable to that continued prosecution of the matter. Time spent in bona fide proceedings on the same cause of action was treated as excludable in principle under section 14 of the Limitation Act, Svt. 1995 (1938 A.D). The Court also proceeded on the footing that the right of one appeal should ordinarily be preserved and that the controversy ought to be decided on merits rather than defeated on limitation alone.

Conclusion: The delay was condonable and the appeal before the Tribunal was required to be heard on merits.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order dismissing the appeal as time-barred was set aside, the delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Bona fide pursuit of remedies on legal advice can constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay, and time spent in such prosecution may justify exclusion under section 14 of the Limitation Act where the matter should otherwise be decided on merits.

---