Condonation of delay requires credible proof of sufficient cause; unsupported explanations were rejected and the first appeal remained dismissed.

Delay in filing an appeal can be condoned only on proof of sufficient cause supported by credible evidence. In this matter, the assessee relied on non-receipt of the assessment order in physical form and change of authorised representative, but the record did not substantiate those claims, including the alleged demise of prior counsel. The affidavit and surrounding facts failed to show that circumstances beyond the assessee's control prevented timely filing. As no credible material established sufficient cause, discretion to condone the 430-day delay was not exercised, and the dismissal of the first appeal was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee had shown sufficient cause for condonation of a delay of 430 days in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority.

Analysis: The delay was sought to be justified on the grounds of non-receipt of the assessment order in physical form and change of authorised representative. The record did not show proof that the earlier counsel had been handling the matter, nor was any evidence produced to substantiate his demise. The affidavit and surrounding facts did not establish that the assessee was prevented by circumstances beyond control from filing the appeal within time. In the absence of credible material showing sufficient cause, the discretion to condone delay could not be exercised in favour of the assessee.

Conclusion: The delay was not liable to be condoned and the dismissal of the appeal before the first appellate authority was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The assessee failed to secure revival of the delayed first appeal, and the adverse procedural order was sustained, resulting in dismissal of the appeal before the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay in filing an appeal can be condoned only on proof of sufficient cause supported by credible evidence; unsupported assertions are insufficient.

---