Delay condonation turned on a plausible auditor-related explanation, with bona fides accepted despite lack of documentary proof.

Delay condonation was allowed where the appellant gave a plausible explanation for a 676-day delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The explanation was that the earlier auditors had withdrawn, a new firm had to be engaged, and the appellant believed the appeal had already been filed by the former auditors. Although the explanation was not backed by documentary evidence, the Court found the particulars sufficient to show bona fides and accepted the delay explanation, noting that the matter was at the first appellate stage before a judicial forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to condonation of a delay of 676 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The explanation for delay was that the earlier auditors had withdrawn from the assignment, a new firm had to be engaged, and the appellant believed that the appeal had been filed by the earlier auditors. The explanation contained specific particulars about the auditors and the surrounding circumstances, and though it was not supported by documentary evidence, the Court found that the particulars rendered the explanation plausible and not wholly lacking in bona fides. The Court held that, even within the caution against casual condonation of large delays, the circumstances justified acceptance of the delay explanation, particularly as the appeal was at the first appellate stage before a judicial forum.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the appellant succeeded on this issue.

---