Condonation of delay turns on acceptable explanation, with substantive justice preferred over technical limitation when the appeal is remitted.

Delay in filing a first appeal was considered in light of the explanation offered and the appellate authority's discretion, with emphasis on the principle that technical limitation should not override substantive justice where a plausible cause is shown. The length of delay was treated as not decisive by itself if the explanation is acceptable. The matter was remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the condonation application and then proceed with the appeal in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the first appeal should be condoned and the matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for consideration on merits.

Analysis: The delay in filing the appeal was examined against the explanation offered by the appellant and the scope of discretion available to the appellate authority. The governing approach favoured deciding matters on merits where a plausible cause for delay was shown, and technical limitation was not to defeat substantive justice. Reliance was placed on the principle that length of delay is not decisive by itself if the cause is acceptable.

Conclusion: The delay issue was not finally rejected against the appellant, and the matter was remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the application for condonation of delay and thereafter deal with the appeal in accordance with law.

---