Condonation of delay failed where the explanation was vague, unsupported, and insufficient to show sufficient cause.

Condonation of delay requires a specific and supported explanation showing sufficient cause; vague reliance on a file not being put up and the absence of an unnamed officer was held inadequate. The Tribunal noted that no supporting affidavit or identifying particulars were furnished, and that similar stereotyped explanations had repeatedly been rejected as insufficient. Authorities cited in support of condonation were treated as factually distinguishable. The 20-day delay in filing the appeal was therefore not condoned, and the application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue had shown sufficient cause for condonation of a 20-day delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the explanation offered was confined to the file not being put up by the dealing section and the absence of the concerned officer, without identifying the officer or furnishing any supporting affidavit. It was observed that similar explanations had repeatedly been rejected on the basis of the ratio that such vague and stereotyped grounds do not constitute sufficient cause, and that the cited authorities supporting condonation were distinguishable on their facts.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the application was rejected.

---