← 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

Strongbuilt Constructions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. OSD TDS Cir ITO TDS WD 2(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6621/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: 11/02/2025

called for. case, and in law, no such action was called for. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 4. CONDONATION OF DELAY 4. CONDONATION OF DELAY 4.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not admitting the appeal and not 4.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred ... admitting the appeal and not 4.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not admitting the appeal and not condoning the delay. condoning the delay. 4.2 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circums 4.2 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circums 4.2 It is submitted

Strongbuild Constructions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. OSD TDS Cir ITO TDS WD 2(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6620/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: 11/02/2025

called for. case, and in law, no such action was called for. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 4. CONDONATION OF DELAY 4. CONDONATION OF DELAY 4.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not admitting the appeal and not 4.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred ... admitting the appeal and not 4.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not admitting the appeal and not condoning the delay. condoning the delay. 4.2 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circums 4.2 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circums 4.2 It is submitted

Kundan Singh Thakur, Raipur vs. ITO-4(1), Raipur (Erstwhile ITO-4(5), Raipur

ITA 477/RPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 477/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 69

placed his reliance on the order of this tribunal in the case of Dinesh Saraogi Vs. ITO (supra), wherein the relevant observations qua condonation of delay permitted to the assessee are culled out as under for the sake of examining the applicability of the said judgment in the present case ... intentional lapse or negligence on the part of assessee in the delay involved in filing of the present appeal, therefore, we allow the condonation of delay. 10. Following the aforesaid analogy drawn by us in the case of Dinesh Saraogi Vs. ITO(Supra), as under the identical circumstances, akin

Ram Kumar Prasad, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Aurangabad

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

ITA 697/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg

Section 144Section 250

Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Appeal of the assessee is time barred by 384 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. After considering the averments made in the application, I condone the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved

Satish Kumar, Patna vs. ITO Ward 6(2) Patna, Patna

ITA 215/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Gargι.Τ.Α. No.: 215/Pat/2024

Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA "SMC” BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKAΤΑ Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ι

Santosh Kumar, Sitamarhi vs. ITO Ward- 2 (5), Sitamarhi

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

ITA 206/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg

Section 250

Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. This appeal of the assessee is time barred by 49 days. However, a condonation of delay petition has been placed in file. After considering the averments made in the application and considering the shortness of delay, I condone the delay in filing the appeal

Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corp. Ltd, Patna vs. ACIT, Exemption Circle-1, Patna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 344/PAT/2018[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Patna12 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation of time by 89 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee for condoning the delay stating as follows: “1. That this is an application for condonation of delay in filing ... prayed that your honour may graciously be pleased to consider the submissions as made in the foregoing paragraphs and further be pleased to condone the delay in the filing of the instant Appeal be admitted and Appeal be fixed for hearing.” 1.2. Considering the condonation application and the reasons stated

Kizhakkekara Sivaraman Nair Unnikrishnan Nair, Ernakulam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Thodupuzha

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 629/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kizhakkekara Sivaraman Niar .......... Appellant Unnikrishnan Nair Kizhakkekara House, Palakuzha Post Koothatuukulam, Ernakulam 686662 [Pan: Alepk0704G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2, Thodupuzha

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

outset, I find that there is a delay of 186 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay stating that the order of the CIT(A) was served through email ID of the erstwhile Accountant. Since the Accountant left the service ... beyond the control of the appellant. Therefore, he prayed for condonation of the delay. 6. Having considered averments made in the petition for condonation of delay, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I am of the 3 Kizhakkekara Sivaraman Niar Unnikrishnan Nair considered opinion that

Arumakkattukudi Vasu Sreenivas, Kalady vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1069/COCH/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Feb 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Arumakkattukudi Vasu Sreenivas .......... Appellant Arumakattukudi House Ashramam Road, Kalady 683574 [Pan: Aysps1428A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2(4), Kochi

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

outset we find that there is a delay in filing the appeal by 343 days. The appellant had filed petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the appellant had no knowledge of the order passed by the CIT(A) as the order was served through email which went ... delay in filing the appeal may be condoned adopting a liberal approach. 3. I have perused the averments made in the petition seeking condonation of delay. The averment that the appellant had no knowledge of the order passed by the CIT(A) is general in nature. The appellant also

Patinhare Purayil Jayaprasanth, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward-4, Kannur

The appeal is dismissed in limine on the ground of delay

ITA 1045/COCH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Patinhare Purayil Jayaprasanth .......... Appellant Sarojini Nivas, Puthappra, Azikode P.O. Kannur 670009 [Pan: Acspj7824M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4 .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Kannothumchalm Kannur 6709006 Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.02.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

outset we find that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 143 days. The appellant not filed any petition seeking condonation of delay. Therefore, I presume that the appellant has no explanation for the delay in presenting the appeal before this Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed

Kanta Prasad Saini, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-4(1), Jaipur

ITA 1272/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1262 & 1272/JP/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2010-11 Shri Kanta Prasad Saini Vs. The ITO 161, Saini Properties Ke Pass Ward 4 (1) Brahampur, Road Tripoliya Bazar, Jaipur Jaipur स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: DFRPS 6798 C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Ashish Khandelwal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, J

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 147

assessee but at the same time the ld. AR of the assessee is warned to be careful in filing the application for condonation of delay in future. 2.4 Apropos ground of appealin ITA No. 1262/JP/2024, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Kanta Prasad Saini, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-4(1), Jaipur

ITA 1262/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2025AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Shri Ashish Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 147

assessee but at the same time the ld. AR of the assessee is warned to be careful in filing the application for condonation of delay in future. 2.4 Apropos ground of appealin ITA No. 1262/JP/2024, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Javid Ibrahim Shaikh, Malegaon vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Nashik

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

ITA 2670/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2670/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Javid Ibrahim Shaikh V/S Ito, Ward 2(1), S. No. 203, P. No. 79, Near Hajra Nashik Masjid, Aqsa Colony, Malegaon- 423203 Maharashtra Pan-Chtps3722B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Meshram
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

alteration, modification of the above grounds of appeal. 3. Registry has informed that the instant appeal is delayed by 177 days. Application for condonation of delay alongwith an affidavit has been filed. Perusal of the same indicates that the delay was on account of non receipt of the impugned order ... impugned order was sent by CIT(A) on another e-mail id 9273575051a@gmail.com. We find this to be a reasonable cause and therefore condone the delay by 177 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 4. At the outset ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned order

Ratna Infrastructure Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ratna Infrastructure Projects Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward –3(3), Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr5836P. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

outset, we find that there is a delay of 291 days in the appeal filed before the Tribunal, for which a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate ... interests of justice. 5. The Ld.CIT-DR, Shri B. Bala Krishna, on the other hand, opposed the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and has submitted that the reasons given by the assessee do not come under a reasonable cause for condoning

Samtel India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 22(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7101/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalasst. Cit, Samtel India Limited, Circle-22(1), 501, Copia Corporate Vs. New Delhi. Suites, District Centre Jasola, New Delhi-110025 Pan-Aaacs0390N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri D.C. Garg, Ca Department By Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/02/2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Is Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, New Delhi (“The Cit(A)” For Short) In Appeal No.32/13-14 Dated 27/01/2015 For Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi, Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case In Upholding Action Of The Assessing Officer In Reopening The Assessment Under Samtel India Ltd. Vs. Acit

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 37

Reliance is also placed on various judicial pronouncements. Samtel India Ltd. vs. ACIT 4. The ld. Sr. D/R strongly opposed the condonation of delay in filing the appeal and submit that there is no provision under Income Tax Act which prevent the assessee to file an appeal even when rectification

Krishna Gopal Saraf, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC- 28, New Delhi

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

ITA 4564/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri J. N. Shukla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 270ASection 270A(9)Section 271ASection 274Section 69Section 69ASection 80P

filing the appeals in time. Hence, in the interest of substantial justice, we hold that this is a fit case for condonation of delay. Accordingly, we direct the Learned NFAC to condone the delay, admit the appeals of the assessee for adjudication and decide the issues in dispute before

The Bardez Urban Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Mapusa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Panaji, Goa

In the result, the appeal filed by the appeal is allowed

ITA 74/PAN/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 74/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17 ) The Bardezurban Co- Vs Ito-Ward-2(4), Panaji.-403001, Operative Credit Society . Goa. Limited, Shop.No.19 20 . Cosmos Centre Mapusa, Bardez-403507, Goa. Pan .No. Aaaat6217F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.S.J.Kamat.Ar Revenue By Shri.Narendra Reddy.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 06.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & The Assesse Has Filed The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Whereas, The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & The Ld. Dr Has No 2 Ita. No. 74/Pan/2024 The Bardez Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited.. Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining The Denial Of Claim Of Deduction Under Section 80P(2)(D) Of The Act.

Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

submitted that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed the affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld. DR has no 2 ITA. No. 74/PAN/2024 The Bardez Urban Co-Operative ... Credit Society Limited.. specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the denial of claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 3. The brief facts

Motavada Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd., Lodhika vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot

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

ITA 504/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)(a)Section 143(1)Section 3

assessee submitted that there was delay in filing the appeal for 339 days, before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed the petition for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A) and explained the sufficient cause for the delay, however, despite of this, the Id. CIT(A) did not condone ... given in the impugned order of Id. CIT(A). We find that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted the following reasons, for condonation of delay: "The Appeal is related to assessment U/s 139(1)(a) made by C.P.C. No any intimation or copy of A.O is received by applicant

Nitinbhai Panchabhai Dhakecha, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(1)(5), Rajkot

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

ITA 399/RJT/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

without appropriate jurisdiction. 4. At the outset, this appeal is time barred by 109 days. Ld. AR has filed an application for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit and request for condonation of delay, relevant part of the Affidavit is reproduced: a. The appellate order was uploaded on the web-portal ... portal. Tax Consultant told him about the order on last week of October. That the Ld. AR of the assessee prayed for condonation of delay and appeal be heard on merit. 6. Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) stating that order

Rahul Kumar, Patna vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Patna

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

ITA 264/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

appeal has been filed on 23rd February 2024 as such there is a delay of 12 days for which this application for condonation of delay has been filed along-with memorandum of appeal. 8. That delay in filing the appeal is primarily because of technical glitch on e-filing portal ... which deponent cannot beheld responsible 9. It is therefore prayed that appellant prayer for granting the condonation for delay of twelve day in filing the appeal may kindly be accepted.” 1.1 Considering the reasons given in the same, and shortness of delay, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal