Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the applicant had disclosed sufficient cause to condone the delay of 480 days in filing the appeal.
Analysis: The delay explanation was accepted on the footing that the applicant had first filed a revision within limitation under the bona fide belief that the remedy lay there, and only after objection to maintainability was raised did the department re-examine the matter and move for an appeal. The sequence of obtaining records, obtaining legal opinion, preparing the draft and filing the appeal promptly after approval was treated as showing due diligence and absence of negligence or lack of bona fides. The Court also applied the settled approach that "sufficient cause" must receive a pragmatic construction where substantial justice is at stake, and that bona fide prosecution before a wrong forum can support exclusionary treatment of the intervening time.
Conclusion: The delay was held to be sufficiently explained and was condoned in favour of the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The application succeeded, and the appeal could be pursued on merits after condonation of delay.
Ratio Decidendi: Bona fide pursuit of a remedy in a wrong forum, followed by prompt corrective action and shown due diligence, can constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay.