Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause and due diligence; inordinate unexplained delay was not excused in first appeal.

Condonation of a 1,050-day delay in filing a first appeal requires sufficient cause under section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, supported by bona fide conduct and due diligence. The assessee's claim of ignorance of the assessment proceedings was found unconvincing because prior notice under section 148 had been issued, the assessment proceedings were not complied with, and no credible material showed diligence. Inordinate delay unsupported by a satisfactory explanation was held not fit for mechanical condonation, and refusal to condone the delay was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee had shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 1050 days in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority.

Analysis: The delay was held to be inordinate. The explanation that the assessee remained unaware of the assessment proceedings was found unconvincing in view of the prior notice under section 148, the non-compliance in assessment proceedings, and the absence of any justifiable material showing due diligence. The discretion under section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was noted to require sufficient cause, and inordinate delay unsupported by bona fide reasons was held not to merit mechanical condonation.

Conclusion: The assessee failed to establish sufficient cause, and the refusal to condone the delay was upheld against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal did not survive on limitation and was dismissed, leaving the impugned dismissal in limine undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of delay under section 249(3) requires proof of sufficient cause showing bona fide conduct and due diligence; inordinate delay caused by negligence or lack of credible explanation cannot be condoned.

---