Condonation of delay requires a bona fide, specific explanation; vague excuses and negligence will not suffice.

A delay of 389 days in seeking to set aside a self-operating order rejecting an appeal was not condoned because the condonation application lacked particulars on when and how the Revenue learned of the dismissal and why the office objections were not removed in time. The explanation was found vague and unsupported by bona fides. The Court reiterated that government departments are bound by limitation and must furnish a reasonable, acceptable explanation for delay; negligence and callousness are insufficient grounds for condonation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 389 days in seeking to set aside the self-operating order rejecting the appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The application for condonation was unsupported by particulars as to when and how the Revenue became aware of the dismissal and why the office objections were not removed within time. The explanation was found to be vague and lacking bona fides. The Court relied on the principle that government departments are bound by limitation and must show a reasonable and acceptable explanation for delay, and noted that the explanation advanced reflected negligence and callousness rather than diligence.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned.

---