https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163597 A delay of 287 days in filing an appeal was condonable where the explanation showed that the appellate order had been served on counsel but was not communicated to the assessee. The court treated the lapse as an omission by counsel, not deliberate inaction or lack of diligence by the litigant, and applied a liberal, pragmatic construction of "sufficient cause" under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The refusal to condone delay was set aside, and the appeal was directed to be registered and heard on merits. en-us Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Apr 2014 11:23:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163597 A delay of 287 days in filing an appeal was condonable where the explanation showed that the appellate order had been served on counsel but was not communicated to the assessee. The court treated the lapse as an omission by counsel, not deliberate inaction or lack of diligence by the litigant, and applied a liberal, pragmatic construction of "sufficient cause" under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The refusal to condone delay was set aside, and the appeal was directed to be registered and heard on merits. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163597