Condonation of delay requires a specific and credible explanation; vague reasons are insufficient and the appeal fails at threshold.

A request to condone a 129-day delay in filing an appeal was rejected because the explanation was vague, unsupported by specific facts, and did not show when the assessee became aware of the order or why the appeal could not be filed in time. The tribunal held that a liberal construction of "sufficient cause" cannot replace a credible and specific explanation. As the delay was not condoned, the appeal was not entertained on merits and the addition relating to unexplained cash deposits remained unexamined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee had shown sufficient cause to condone the delay of 129 days in filing the appeal.

Analysis: The explanation for the delay was found to be vague and unsupported by any specific particulars or material. No satisfactory basis was placed to show when the assessee became aware of the order or why the appeal could not be filed within time. In the absence of a justifiable explanation, the request for liberal construction of the expression "sufficient cause" was not accepted.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the appeal could not be entertained on merits.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed at the threshold on limitation, and the addition relating to unexplained cash deposits was not examined on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A request for condonation of delay must be supported by a credible and specific explanation; vague and unsubstantiated reasons do not constitute sufficient cause.

---