← All Phrases

“condonation of delay”

AppealsSection 249Section 24912,312 judgments

The decision most relied on for condonation of delay is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on condonation of delay

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.
2 SCC 107 · 1987 · Supreme Court
451
citing judgments

Courts must adopt a liberal approach when considering applications for condonation of delay, preferring to decide cases on their merits rather than allowing technicalities of limitation to scuttle justice. This principle applies to ensure the substantive rights of parties are not defeated by minor delays.

Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy
7 SCC 123 · 1998 · Supreme Court
368
citing judgments

The Supreme Court outlines the principles for condoning delay in filing appeals, stating that a litigant's lapse is not always a bar if the explanation is bona fide and not a dilatory strategy. Courts should show utmost consideration to suitors and prioritize substantial justice unless the delay is deliberately to gain time.

Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr
398 ITR 250 · 2017 · High Court
291
citing judgments

This case is cited as an authority supporting the condonation of delay in filing income tax appeals, particularly when an assessee presents a request for such condonation.

Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others
118 ITR 507 · 1979 · Supreme Court
268
citing judgments

For condoning delay, the term 'sufficient cause' must be interpreted liberally and purposively to advance justice. Delay not tainted by mala fides, gross negligence, or recklessness, and based on honestly obtained legal advice, constitutes sufficient cause.

Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
2025 INSC 382 · 2025 · Supreme Court
267
citing judgments

Non-deliberate procedural delays caused by circumstances beyond control must be condoned in the interest of substantial justice, even if the delay is significant, such as over 1500 days.

Vedabhai v. Santaram
253 ITR 798 · 2002 · Supreme Court
262
citing judgments

When substantial justice and technical considerations are in conflict, substantial justice should be prioritized. Condoning delay requires a cautious approach without malafide or dilatory tactics, and 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice.

Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT
280 ITR 357 · 2006 · High Court
182
citing judgments

The expression "sufficient cause" for condoning delay in filing appeals must receive a liberal and purposive construction. This approach aims to advance substantial justice, which is of paramount importance.

Judgments citing condonation of delay

Shri Sadguru Nirupadeshwara Nitya Dasoha Charitable Trust Ankalimath, Mudgal, Lingasuru Tq Raichur Dist vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Exemption Ward-1, Kalburgi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 457/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ramanagowda S Gowdar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian JCIT, DR
Section 12ASection 80G

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld AR of the assessee drew our attention to an application for condonation of delay filed along with an affidavit in original sworn before the Notary , Lingasugur dated 12.5.2025 stating therein the cause of delay, which are reproduced below for ease ... time limitation. Nevertheless, the appeal was filed before this Hon'ble ITAT on date 11th May, 2025 accompanied by an application for condonation of delay as provided under section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT, 1963. 10. Further, the Appellant prays that its case be allowed to contest the appeal

Shri Sadguru Nirupadeshwara Nitya Dasoha Charitable Trust Ankalimath, Makapur, Lingasuru Tq and Raichur Dist vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Exemption Ward-1, Kalburgi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1084/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ramanagowda S Gowdar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian JCIT, DR
Section 12ASection 80G

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld AR of the assessee drew our attention to an application for condonation of delay filed along with an affidavit in original sworn before the Notary , Lingasugur dated 12.5.2025 stating therein the cause of delay, which are reproduced below for ease ... time limitation. Nevertheless, the appeal was filed before this Hon'ble ITAT on date 11th May, 2025 accompanied by an application for condonation of delay as provided under section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT, 1963. 10. Further, the Appellant prays that its case be allowed to contest the appeal

Birla Pacific Medspa Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 4232/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara- A.Y. 2009-10 - A.Y. 2010-11 - A.Y. 2011-12 - A.Y. 2012-13 - A.Y. 2013-14 - A.Y. 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Hrushikesh JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R Singh, CIT DR
Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(5)

registry informed that all the appeals are filed with a delay of 87 days. The assesse filed a condonation petition praying for condonation of delay. The relevant paragraphs of the said condonation petition is extracted below: - “Reason for Delay: The appellant's delay arose from exceptional and uncontrollable circumstances ... which is the case here.” 3. The Ld. DR had not made any strong objection against the submissions of the assessee. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 87 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and the appeals are taken up for adjudication. 4. All the appeals are having

Birla Pacific Medspa Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 4231/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara- A.Y. 2009-10 - A.Y. 2010-11 - A.Y. 2011-12 - A.Y. 2012-13 - A.Y. 2013-14 - A.Y. 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Hrushikesh JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R Singh, CIT DR
Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(5)

registry informed that all the appeals are filed with a delay of 87 days. The assesse filed a condonation petition praying for condonation of delay. The relevant paragraphs of the said condonation petition is extracted below: - “Reason for Delay: The appellant's delay arose from exceptional and uncontrollable circumstances ... which is the case here.” 3. The Ld. DR had not made any strong objection against the submissions of the assessee. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 87 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and the appeals are taken up for adjudication. 4. All the appeals are having

Birla Pacific Medspa Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 4230/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara- A.Y. 2009-10 - A.Y. 2010-11 - A.Y. 2011-12 - A.Y. 2012-13 - A.Y. 2013-14 - A.Y. 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Hrushikesh JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R Singh, CIT DR
Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(5)

registry informed that all the appeals are filed with a delay of 87 days. The assesse filed a condonation petition praying for condonation of delay. The relevant paragraphs of the said condonation petition is extracted below: - “Reason for Delay: The appellant's delay arose from exceptional and uncontrollable circumstances ... which is the case here.” 3. The Ld. DR had not made any strong objection against the submissions of the assessee. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 87 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and the appeals are taken up for adjudication. 4. All the appeals are having

Birla Pacific Medspa Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 4229/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara- A.Y. 2009-10 - A.Y. 2010-11 - A.Y. 2011-12 - A.Y. 2012-13 - A.Y. 2013-14 - A.Y. 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Hrushikesh JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R Singh, CIT DR
Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(5)

registry informed that all the appeals are filed with a delay of 87 days. The assesse filed a condonation petition praying for condonation of delay. The relevant paragraphs of the said condonation petition is extracted below: - “Reason for Delay: The appellant's delay arose from exceptional and uncontrollable circumstances ... which is the case here.” 3. The Ld. DR had not made any strong objection against the submissions of the assessee. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 87 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and the appeals are taken up for adjudication. 4. All the appeals are having

Birla Pacific Medspa Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 4228/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara- A.Y. 2009-10 - A.Y. 2010-11 - A.Y. 2011-12 - A.Y. 2012-13 - A.Y. 2013-14 - A.Y. 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Hrushikesh JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R Singh, CIT DR
Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(5)

registry informed that all the appeals are filed with a delay of 87 days. The assesse filed a condonation petition praying for condonation of delay. The relevant paragraphs of the said condonation petition is extracted below: - “Reason for Delay: The appellant's delay arose from exceptional and uncontrollable circumstances ... which is the case here.” 3. The Ld. DR had not made any strong objection against the submissions of the assessee. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 87 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and the appeals are taken up for adjudication. 4. All the appeals are having

Birla Pacific Medspa Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 4227/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara- A.Y. 2009-10 - A.Y. 2010-11 - A.Y. 2011-12 - A.Y. 2012-13 - A.Y. 2013-14 - A.Y. 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Hrushikesh JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R Singh, CIT DR
Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(5)

registry informed that all the appeals are filed with a delay of 87 days. The assesse filed a condonation petition praying for condonation of delay. The relevant paragraphs of the said condonation petition is extracted below: - “Reason for Delay: The appellant's delay arose from exceptional and uncontrollable circumstances ... which is the case here.” 3. The Ld. DR had not made any strong objection against the submissions of the assessee. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 87 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and the appeals are taken up for adjudication. 4. All the appeals are having

A.P.Associates, Haridwar vs. ACIT, Haridwar

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 37/DDN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 25/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 26/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2014-15)

Section 143(3)

respectively. 2. There is a delay of 766 days in filing the above Appeals. The Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay contending that the Assessee filed the Appeals in online mode well within the period of limitation on 12/12/2022 itself before the Tribunal. However, the Appeals filed online ... again filed the present Appeals and contended that there is a bona-fide reason for filing the captioned Appeals belatedly and sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeals. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate

Ap, Associates, Haridwar vs. CIT, Dehradun

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 26/DDN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun22 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 25/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 26/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2014-15)

Section 143(3)

respectively. 2. There is a delay of 766 days in filing the above Appeals. The Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay contending that the Assessee filed the Appeals in online mode well within the period of limitation on 12/12/2022 itself before the Tribunal. However, the Appeals filed online ... again filed the present Appeals and contended that there is a bona-fide reason for filing the captioned Appeals belatedly and sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeals. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate

A.P.Associates, Haridwar vs. CIT(A), Dehradun

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 25/DDN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 25/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 26/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2014-15)

Section 143(3)

respectively. 2. There is a delay of 766 days in filing the above Appeals. The Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay contending that the Assessee filed the Appeals in online mode well within the period of limitation on 12/12/2022 itself before the Tribunal. However, the Appeals filed online ... again filed the present Appeals and contended that there is a bona-fide reason for filing the captioned Appeals belatedly and sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeals. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate

Bhai Daya Singh Ji Bhai Himmat Singh Ji Nishkam Satsang Sabha Through Its Managing Trustee, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh

Accordingly. 22. In the combined result, both appeals (ITA No.728 & 732/SRT/2023) are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 258/ASR/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

limits prescribed therein is I.T.A. No. 257 & 258/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: N/A 5 mandatory and the Commissioner of Income Tax has no power to condone the delay in filing application in Form No.10AB. 5. The ld. AR vehemently assailed the order and has placed on record the order of ITAT, Surat ... this order are extract below: “19. Now the next question before us is that whether Tribunal has power to condone the delay in filing the Form No.10AB, u/s 80G(5) of the Act. The Tribunal is a final fact finding authority, and based on the assessee`s facts and undue

Bhai Daya Singh Ji Bhai Dharam Singh Ji Nishkam Satsang Sabha, Ludhiana vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh

Accordingly. 22. In the combined result, both appeals (ITA No.728 & 732/SRT/2023) are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 257/ASR/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

limits prescribed therein is I.T.A. No. 257 & 258/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: N/A 5 mandatory and the Commissioner of Income Tax has no power to condone the delay in filing application in Form No.10AB. 5. The ld. AR vehemently assailed the order and has placed on record the order of ITAT, Surat ... this order are extract below: “19. Now the next question before us is that whether Tribunal has power to condone the delay in filing the Form No.10AB, u/s 80G(5) of the Act. The Tribunal is a final fact finding authority, and based on the assessee`s facts and undue

Shri Bilal Ahmad Hazari, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 22/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 144Section 250Section 253Section 69A

days in filing the appeal before us. The assessee has filed a condonation application, which is reproduced as under:- Subject;- Application for Condonation of delay for filing Appeal u/s 253 of the Act. The appellant filed appeal u/s 253 of the Act before the Hon'ble Bench on 08/01/2025 ... Upon consideration, we are of the considered view that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the said appeal. We, therefore, condone the delay of 226 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case:-The assessee did not file his return of income

Gurpreet Singh Khurana, Jalandhar vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 539/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, dated 19.07.2024 for the A.Y. 2017-18 passed u/s 143(3). Condonation of delay; 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before ... submitted an application for condonation of delay which is reproduced as below: I.T.A. No. 539/Asr/2024 2 Assessment Year: 2017-18 That the appeal filed before the Hon'ble Bench in this case on 27.09.2024, against the order dated 19.07.2024 of NFAC/CIT(A), as pointed out by the registry, is late

Amandip Siingh, House No. Near Nehar Patti vs. ITO Ward 1, Tarn Taran, ITO Ward, Tarn Taran Sarhali Road

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 414/ASR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 221(1)Section 250

days in filing the appeal before us. The assessee has filed a condonation application, which is reproduced as under:- “Regarding: Application for condonation of delay in the filing of appeal in the case of Amandip Singh, S/o Kashmir Singh, H.NO.92, Near Nehar, Village Uboke (Baik) Patti, Distt Tarn Taran ... Assessment Year 2013-14 This is to bring to your honor's kind notice the following facts for consideration with a request to condone the delay in the filing of appeal against the order of CIT(A):- 1. That order u/s 250 was passed by the Id.CIT(A) vide

Akhilesh Kumar Patel, Shahdol vs. Income Tax Officer Dhar, Dhar

ITA 627/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 147

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Sh. Prabhati Lal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-4(5), Jaipur

ITA 1021/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 54

reported by the Registry, the appeal is barred by limitation by 162 days. Accordingly, the assessee has come up with an application seeking condonation of delay. The application is accompanied by an affidavit. On the point of condonation of delay, Ld. AR for the applicant has submitted that the applicant ... when Shri Veerendra Bhardwaj, C.A. browsed the e-filing portal to know about fait of the appeal. Accordingly, Ld. AR has prayed for condonation of delay. 3. In the supporting affidavit, the assessee-applicant has testified as follows:- “4. For filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A), I through

Jarnail Singh, Mohali vs. Jao ITO Ward-6(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 647/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

present appeal as pointed out by the Registry. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has moved an application seeking condonation of delay and has also filed an affidavit and our reference was drawn to the contents of the affidavit so filed by the assessee

Gandhinagar Malayalee Samajam, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 467/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.467/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : Na Gandhinagar Malayalee The Commissioner Of Samajam, बनाम/ Income Tax(Exemption), V/S. Plot No.473/1, Ahmedabad. Sector-12/B, Gandhinagar-382016. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aactg1489K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri R P Rastogi, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(E)”] Dated 17.09.2024 Passed Under Section 80G(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Whereby The Assessee’S Application In Form No. 10Ab Seeking Approval Under Section 80G Of The Act Was Rejected As Non- Maintainable. Gandhinagar M Samajam Vs. Cit(E) Assessment Year Na

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, Sr-DR
Section 11Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iv)

seeking approval under section 80G of the Act was rejected as non- maintainable. Gandhinagar M Samajam Vs. CIT(E) Assessment Year NA 2 Condonation of Delay 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 90 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed ... appeal. The delay thus occurred due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances. 3. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) raised no objection to the condonation of delay. Considering the affidavit, the circumstances explained, and the settled law that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities, we are satisfied that there was sufficient