Condonation of delay in second appeals accepted where disputed service and prompt action on knowledge showed sufficient cause.

Delay in filing second appeals may be condoned where the record shows sufficient cause, including disputed service of the appellate order, takeover of the premises under SARFAESI proceedings, and prompt action after actual knowledge. On those facts, the Court accepted the assessee's bona fides, found no deliberate inaction, and preferred a liberal approach so the matter could be examined on merits. The delay was condoned, the refusal to entertain the appeals was set aside, and the second appeals were directed to be heard on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of about 3 years and 7 months in filing the second appeals against the first appellate order deserved condonation on the facts showing alleged non-service of the order and prompt action after knowledge.

Analysis: The delay was examined in the light of the surrounding circumstances, including the takeover of the appellant's premises under SARFAESI proceedings, the fact that the order was served at premises not shown to be under the appellant's control, the Mumbai registered office address, and the subsequent conduct of the appellant in seeking a copy and filing the second appeals soon after acquiring knowledge. On these facts, the Court found sufficient cause, accepted the bona fides of the appellant, and declined to impute deliberate inaction. The Court also adopted a liberal approach in favour of giving the assessee an opportunity to contest the matter on merits.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned, the Tribunal's order refusing to entertain the appeals was set aside, and the second appeals were directed to be heard and decided on merits.

---