Condonation of delayed appeal requires credible sufficient cause; vague administrative explanations were held inadequate

Delay of 453 days in filing a second appeal required a cogent, credible and satisfactory explanation showing sufficient cause. The reasons offered-election duty, shortage of manpower, and departmental delay-were found vague, inadequate and unjustifiable, and the specific factual objection to the election-duty claim was not properly considered. The Tribunal had erred in taking a lenient view without testing whether sufficient cause was actually made out. The delay was not liable to be condoned, and the condonation order was set aside in favour of the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 453 days in filing the second appeal by the revenue ought to have been condoned.

Analysis: The explanation offered for the belated appeal was that the concerned officers were on election duty, there was shortage of manpower, and the appeal proposal was delayed in the departmental process. The objections raised by the petitioner, including the specific factual challenge to the claimed election-duty explanation, were not properly considered. A delay of this magnitude required a cogent, credible and satisfactory explanation showing sufficient cause. The reasons furnished were found to be vague, inadequate and unjustifiable, and the Tribunal had erred in adopting a lenient view without testing the sufficiency of cause.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the second appeal was not liable to be condoned; the order condoning delay was set aside in favour of the petitioner.

---