Sufficient cause for delay was not shown where no day-to-day explanation or prompt follow-up was provided.

Sufficient cause for condonation of delay was not established where the appellant merely stated that it was awaiting the Assistant Collector's opinion, without explaining why that opinion was necessary, why the matter could not be examined internally, or what steps were taken to obtain it promptly. The absence of a satisfactory time chart or day-to-day explanation left the delay unexplained. The condonation application was dismissed, and the appeal was treated as time-barred and rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether sufficient cause was shown for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis: The delay was sought to be justified on the ground that the opinion of the Assistant Collector was awaited. The explanation did not show why such opinion was necessary, why the matter could not be examined within the appellant's own office, or what steps were taken to secure the opinion promptly. No satisfactory time chart or day-to-day explanation for the delay was furnished.

Conclusion: Sufficient cause was not established and the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, with the result that the appeal was treated as time-barred and rejected.

---