Condonation of delay may be allowed where a remedy was pursued in the wrong forum on bona fide legal advice.

A delay in filing an appeal before the first appellate authority may be condoned where the assessee, acting in good faith, had already pursued the reassessment dispute before the wrong forum on bona fide legal advice. The mistaken appeal before the Tribunal, followed by prompt action before the correct appellate authority after dismissal for want of maintainability, was treated as sufficient cause because there was no material showing mala fides, recklessness, or an attempt to gain advantage by delay. The principle stated is that due diligence and bona fide pursuit of remedy in the wrong forum can justify condonation of delay.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority, after a mistaken appeal had been filed before the Tribunal, deserved condonation.

Analysis: The delay was substantial, but the assessee had not remained idle and had been pursuing a remedy against the reassessment order before a wrong forum. The filing before the Tribunal was treated as a bona fide mistake based on wrong legal advice, with no material showing mala fides, recklessness, or an attempt to gain advantage by delay. The earlier mistaken proceeding, followed by prompt action before the proper forum after dismissal for want of maintainability, constituted sufficient cause for invoking the principle of condonation of delay.

Conclusion: The delay was rightly condonable and the appeal before the first appellate authority ought to have been admitted and heard on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay may be condoned where a litigant, acting in good faith and with due diligence, has pursued a remedy in the wrong forum on bona fide legal advice, provided there is no mala fide intention, recklessness, or attempt to evade limitation.

---