Sufficient Cause test denied where unexplained internal disputes failed to demonstrate due diligence; condonation refused.

Application for condonation of delay in filing appeals was rejected for want of sufficient cause: the explanation of internal disputes, hostility and non-cooperation lacked specific documentary proof covering the period of delay and did not demonstrate due diligence or that delay was beyond the appellant's control. The tribunal applied limitation principles, the requirement to explain every day's delay, and the discretionary doctrine that condonation cannot be granted for inordinate unexplained delay or where prejudice to the respondent would result. Connected appeals were disposed of similarly; substantive orders below were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal (delay of 315 days before ITAT and 3615 days before CIT(A)) discloses sufficient cause such that the appeal is maintainable; and (ii) Whether connected appeals with identical facts are to be disposed of similarly.

Analysis: The Tribunal considered the statutory framework governing limitation and condonation under Section 249(2) and Section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the authorities on the principles of 'sufficient cause', laches, and the exercise of judicial discretion. The application for condonation relied on internal dispute between present and ex-committee members, hostile conduct and non-cooperation causing inability to file appeals or furnish documents. The Tribunal examined the documentary record and the Form 35 explanation, found no specific documentary evidence covering the entire period of delay, noted absence of any civil/criminal action against ex-committee members and held that the explanation was general and did not meet the requirement that every day's delay be explained and that the cause must be beyond the appellant's control. The Tribunal applied established precedents and principles requiring demonstration of due diligence and the burden on the appellant to prove sufficient cause, and observed that condonation is discretionary and cannot be granted for inordinate unexplained delay where prejudice to the respondent would result.

Conclusion: The application for condonation of delay is rejected for want of sufficient cause; the appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed in limine. The orders of the CIT(A) are upheld. The same reasoning applies mutatis mutandis to the connected appeals.

---