Sufficient cause for condonation of delay accepted where service was disputed, financial difficulty was shown, and evidence went unrebutted.

Delay in filing the first appeal was held to be supported by sufficient cause under section 5 of the Limitation Act where the assessment order had been served on a person said not to be an employee of the assessee, the assessee had later revived after financial difficulty, and the supporting material remained unrebutted. On those facts, the application for condonation should have been allowed, and the refusal to condone the delay was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the substantial delay in filing the first appeal ought to have been condoned on the basis of the reasons stated in the application under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act.

Analysis: The delay condonation application disclosed that the assessment order had been served on a person stated not to be an employee of the assessee, that the assessee had suffered financial difficulty and had later revived, and that the material supporting the application had not been rebutted. On these facts, the reasons furnished were found to constitute sufficient cause for the delayed filing of the appeal.

Conclusion: The delay should have been condoned and the refusal to do so was unsustainable.

---