Condonation of delay denied where acknowledged notice showed knowledge of proceedings and no sufficient cause was proved.

A delay of 512 days in filing an appeal was held not to be condonable because the appellant failed to show sufficient cause. The explanation that no notice or communication had been received was rejected after the record showed acknowledgment of the show cause notice by the karta of the HUF, including a request for time to reply. As the acknowledged address matched the address used in the proceedings and appeal, the appellant was found to have knowledge of the matter. The condonation application was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 512 days in filing the appeal deserved condonation.

Analysis: The appeal was filed with substantial delay, and the explanation offered was that the appellant was unaware of the proceedings and had not received notices or communications. The record showed that the appellant, through the karta of the HUF, had acknowledged receipt of the show cause notice and had requested time to reply. The address in that acknowledgment matched the address used in the proceedings and in the appeal, which that the appellant had knowledge of the matter. The explanation for delay was therefore found to be factually incorrect and no sufficient cause was shown.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the application was rejected.

---