Delay condonation requires due care and attention; pursuing a mistaken remedy does not automatically show sufficient cause.

Delay condonation turns on the facts of each case, and a mistaken remedy pursued without due care and attention does not by itself amount to sufficient cause. The Court noted that the assessee first pursued rectification proceedings under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and filed the appeal only after that attempt failed, but the rectification application was misconceived on the facts. A counsel's mistake is not automatically enough for condonation; the decisive question is whether the proceedings were prosecuted with reasonable care and attention. On these facts, no error of law was shown in the Tribunal's refusal to condone the 520-day delay.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal exercised its discretion judicially in refusing to condone the delay of 520 days in filing the assessee's appeal.

Analysis: The explanation for delay was that the assessee pursued rectification proceedings under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and filed the appeal only after the rectification attempt failed. The application for rectification was, however, misconceived on the facts. The Court held that every mistake of counsel does not automatically constitute sufficient cause for condonation; the question depends on whether the proceedings were prosecuted with due care and attention. On the facts, including the background of the case and the relationship between the assessee and his counsel, no error of law was shown in the Tribunal's refusal to condone the delay.

Conclusion: The Tribunal rightly refused to condone the delay and the reference was answered in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of delay depends on the facts of each case, and a mistaken remedy pursued without due care and attention does not by itself amount to sufficient cause for condonation.

---