Condonation of inordinate delay requires proved sufficient cause; unsupported explanation was rejected and the appeals were time-barred.

Inordinate delay in filing an appeal can be condoned only where sufficient cause is convincingly and duly proved, showing that the delay was beyond the assessee's control and was not due to negligence or inaction. The text notes that while marginal delay may receive liberal consideration, a 744-day delay required a stronger explanation supported by evidence. As the explanation was not substantiated, the delay was not condoned and the appeals were dismissed as barred by limitation, leaving the assessment and appellate orders undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee had shown sufficient cause to condone the delay of 744 days in filing the appeals.

Analysis: The appeals were filed after an inordinate delay, and the explanation offered for the delay was not supported by evidence. The grounds urged did not establish that the delay was beyond the assessee's control or that there was no negligence or inaction. In matters of condonation, liberal consideration may apply to marginal delay, but an inordinate delay requires a convincing and duly proved explanation.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned, and the appeals were dismissed as barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's appeals failed at the threshold on limitation, leaving the assessment and appellate orders undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Inordinate delay in filing an appeal can be condoned only on a satisfactorily proved explanation showing sufficient cause and absence of negligence; sympathy alone is not a ground for condonation.

---