Condonation of delay requires a bona fide explanation; failure of counsel to inform the assessee can constitute sufficient cause.

Delay in filing second appeals before the Tribunal was explained by the assessee on the ground that earlier counsel did not appear before the first appellate authority and did not inform the assessee of the ex parte orders. The explanation was supported by counsel's letter and was treated as bona fide and reasonable, showing sufficient cause and no fault on the assessee's part. The Tribunal had failed to consider this absence of culpability and rejected the condonation applications without properly appreciating the material. The refusal to condone delay was therefore unsustainable, and the delay ought to have been condoned.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal ought to have been condoned on the basis of the explanation that the assessee's counsel failed to appear and failed to inform the assessee about the ex parte appellate orders.

Analysis: The revision concerned only the refusal to condone delay in filing the second appeals. The explanation offered by the assessee was that the earlier counsel did not appear before the first appellate authority and did not communicate the result of the ex parte proceedings, and the appeals were filed only after recovery proceedings were initiated. The explanation was supported by the counsel's letter and was found to be bona fide and reasonable. The Tribunal had failed to appreciate the absence of fault on the part of the assessee and had rejected the delay condonation applications without properly considering the sufficient cause shown.

Conclusion: The delay ought to have been condoned and the Tribunal's refusal to do so was unsustainable.

---