Condonation of delay depends on sufficient cause; unexplained inordinate delay and lack of diligence justified refusal to condone.

Condonation of delay requires a bona fide and adequately explained sufficient cause; inordinate delay marked by negligence, lack of diligence or want of due care may be refused even if the underlying claim has arguable merits. The explanation that the appellate intimation was not noticed for years was found not credible, particularly given electronic communication and SMS intimation, and the conduct showed insufficient diligence in pursuing the remedy. The refusal to condone the delay was upheld, so the appeal failed at the threshold on limitation and the deduction claim was not examined on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority ought to have been condoned on the facts shown.

Analysis: The governing principles for condonation of delay require a strict approach to limitation and a liberal approach only where sufficient cause is satisfactorily explained. The existence of a long and unexplained delay, coupled with lack of diligence, negligence, or want of due care, can justify refusal to condone even if the underlying dispute may have arguable merits. The explanation that the intimation was not noticed for years was not found credible, particularly in view of electronic communication and SMS intimation, and the conduct reflected a lack of diligence in pursuing the remedy.

Conclusion: The refusal to condone the delay was upheld and the delay was not condoned.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed at the threshold on limitation and no adjudication on the merits of the deduction claim was granted.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of delay depends on a bona fide and adequately explained sufficient cause, and inordinate delay marked by negligence or want of due diligence may be refused notwithstanding the merits of the underlying dispute.

---