Condonation of delay fails where unsupported claims of non-receipt do not establish sufficient cause for late appeals.

Sufficient cause was not shown to condone delays of 259 to 351 days in filing appeals before the NFAC/ITAT, because the assessee's explanation about non-receipt of notices through an e-mail used by a former employee of its chartered accountant was unsupported by affidavits or corroborative evidence. Applying settled limitation principles, the ITAT held that general, unverified assertions and conduct suggesting negligence or lackadaisical follow-up do not justify condonation. The NFAC's refusal to condone delay was therefore not perverse or unsustainable, and the appeals were dismissed as barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing appeals before the NFAC/Tribunal could be condoned on the grounds urged by the assessee, i.e., non-receipt of notices due to emails being sent to an ex-employee of the chartered accountant and related explanations, thereby admitting the appeals for adjudication on merits.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the factual explanations offered for delays ranging from 259 to 351 days and the condonation petitions presented before the NFAC and this Tribunal. The assessee's explanation consisted chiefly of assertions that notices/orders were sent to an e-mail account maintained by an employee of the assessee's chartered accountant who subsequently left employment and did not inform the assessee or provide access; no affidavits or corroborative evidence identifying that employee, his departure date, or documentary proof of non-receipt were furnished. The authorities and the Tribunal applied established principles that condonation of delay requires sufficient cause supported by cogent evidence, and that negligence, lack of bona fides, or mere hearsay explanations do not constitute sufficient cause. Precedents emphasising rigorous application of limitation where inaction or negligence is imputable were relied upon. The Tribunal found the explanations to be general, uncorroborated, and indicative of negligence or lackadaisical conduct rather than events beyond the assessee's control, and concluded that the NFAC's refusal to condone delay was not perverse or unsustainable.

Conclusion: The application for condonation of delay is rejected for lack of sufficient cause and the appeals are dismissed as barred by limitation; the appeals are therefore not admitted and are dismissed in limine.

---