Appeal Dismissed Due to Delay in Filing - Lack of Justification

The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the appeal due to the appellant's unsatisfactory justification for the 1434-day delay in filing. Despite citing the accountant's illness and difficulties in record tracing, the Tribunal found the evidence provided insufficient. The appellant's history of similar delays in previous appeals also influenced the decision, leading the Tribunal to conclude that the appellant should have been more diligent. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the explanation was unacceptable and ruled against the appellant, emphasizing the lack of compelling evidence for the delay.

---

---

Issues:
Condensation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal for 1434 days.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an application for condonation of delay of 1434 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant's counsel explained that the delay was due to the serious illness of the accountant, who suffered from cervical spondylitis and arthritis, leading to bed rest and treatment. The appellant also cited difficulties in tracing records from 2008 onwards. The director of the appellant submitted an affidavit supporting these claims. The appellant pointed out a previous case where a delay in filing was condoned by the High Court. However, the Departmental Representative argued that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence of the accountant's illness and criticized the explanation for the delay.

Upon reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal found that the director's affidavit did not sufficiently prove the illness of the accountant. The Tribunal noted that similar delays had been condoned in previous appeals by the appellant. Despite acknowledging the receipt of the Order-in-Original and the challenges faced by the accountant, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant should have been more diligent in filing the appeal on time, given their history of litigation on the same issue. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the explanation provided was not acceptable and dismissed both the application for condonation of delay and the appeal itself.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the appellant's justification for the delay was not satisfactory, leading to the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay and the appeal. The decision was based on the lack of sufficient evidence supporting the reasons for the delay and the appellant's previous history of delayed appeals on similar issues.

---