Condonation of delay upheld where sufficient cause and administrative difficulties justified late filing; revisional interference rejected.

Condonation of a 1365-day delay in filing a revenue appeal was upheld because the explanation was found satisfactory on the facts, including staff shortage, election duties, absence of the concerned official, and the COVID-19 period. The period affected by COVID-19 was treated as excluded for limitation purposes, and the election-related delay was accepted as reasonably connected to administrative circumstances. The Tribunal's view was treated as a proper exercise of discretion on sufficient cause, and revisional interference was unwarranted absent arbitrariness, perversity, or untenable reasoning. The challenge to condonation therefore failed, and the appeal was to be decided expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay of 1365 days in filing the revenue appeal.

Analysis: The delay was examined on the facts of the case, including shortage of staff, deployment of employees in election duties, absence of the concerned official, and the impact of the COVID-19 period. The explanation for delay was found to be satisfactory. The period affected by COVID-19 was treated as excluded for limitation purposes, and the delay attributable to election-related duties was also accepted as having a reasonable connection with the administrative circumstances. The Tribunal's approach was viewed as a proper exercise of discretion on sufficient cause.

Conclusion: The condonation of delay was upheld and the challenge to it failed.

Final Conclusion: The revision was not accepted, and the Tribunal was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of delay depends on the acceptability of the explanation and, where sufficient cause is shown, the exercise of discretion should not be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction unless it is arbitrary, perverse, or based on untenable grounds.

---