Condonation of delay requires a convincing explanation; inordinate, unexplained delay and suppression of facts defeat writ relief.

Condonation of delay requires a cogent, convincing and satisfactory explanation for the entire period of delay; inordinate delay caused by negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is not excused on sympathetic grounds alone. The Gujarat HC found the explanation for filing the second appeal unacceptable because service of the appellate order was on record, no credible explanation covered the full delay, and the petitioner had suppressed the subsequent assessment order while pursuing the earlier appeal. The Tribunal's refusal to condone the delay was upheld and writ interference was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to condone the inordinate delay in filing the second appeal and whether interference in writ jurisdiction was warranted.

Analysis: The explanation for the delay was found unacceptable because the record showed service of the appellate order, no credible explanation was given for the entire period of delay, and the petitioner had suppressed the subsequent assessment order while pursuing the earlier appeal. The Court held that condonation of delay depends on a cogent, convincing, and satisfactory explanation, and that inordinate delay caused by negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides cannot be excused on sympathetic grounds alone.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's refusal to condone the delay was upheld and no interference was made in writ jurisdiction.

---