Sufficient cause for delayed tax appeals requires supporting evidence; repeated non-appearance permits dismissal for non-prosecution.

Delay in filing an income-tax appeal may be condoned under Section 253(5) only on sufficient cause supported by evidence; general explanations based on personal events, ill health, depression, or a former consultant's unavailability do not meet that standard. A liberal approach to limitation cannot override the statutory requirement. The notes also state that repeated non-appearance on listed hearing dates, without an adjournment request, constitutes failure to prosecute and permits dismissal of the appeal without further adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the 74-day delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was liable to be condoned; (ii) whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

Issue (i): Whether the 74-day delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was liable to be condoned.

Analysis: Under Section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, delay may be condoned only where sufficient cause is shown. The explanations relating to personal events, ill health, depression and the unavailability of the earlier tax consultant were general and unsupported by corroborative evidence. The principle of a liberal or justice-oriented approach cannot be used to defeat the statutory law of limitation.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

Analysis: The appellant did not appear on any of the three dates fixed for hearing and did not file an adjournment application. The Tribunal applied the principle that a court or tribunal may dismiss a proceeding where the appellant fails to prosecute it.

Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

Final Conclusion: The statutory delay remained unexplained and the appellant's continued absence demonstrated failure to prosecute the appeal, leaving no basis for further adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned without sufficient and supported cause, and an appeal may be dismissed where the appellant repeatedly fails to appear and prosecute it.

---