Condonation of delay may rest on a credible explanation, with documentary proof not always essential for a short filing delay.

A short delay in filing an appeal may be condoned where the explanation is plausible and credible, and a quasi-judicial authority should ordinarily give due weight to counsel's statement without insisting rigidly on documentary proof. On the facts, the delay was explained by counsel's angina pain, the briefness of the delay supported condonation, the limitation dismissal was set aside, and the matter was restored for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the 4-day delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner should be condoned and the appeal restored for decision on merits.

Analysis: The delay was explained on the basis that counsel had suffered angina pain. The explanation was treated as deserving due weight, and it was held that a quasi-judicial authority should ordinarily accept such a statement on its face. In the circumstances, especially considering the shortness of the delay, strict insistence on supporting medical evidence was found unwarranted.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned, the dismissal on limitation was set aside, and the Commissioner was directed to hear the main appeal on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A short delay may be condoned on a plausible explanation supported by counsel's statement, and a rigid insistence on documentary proof is unwarranted where the explanation appears credible.

---