Amitava Roy, J.

1. The miscellaneous cases have been registered on applications filed under s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short hereafter referred to as "the Limitation Act") seeking condonation of delay of 290/287 days in filing the accompanying appeals. These applications, at the first instance, were rejected by the order dt. 28th Oct., 2009, of another Division Bench of this Court sustaining the objection raised on behalf of the opposite party that the prayer for condonation of delay under s. 5 of the Act, 1963, in filing the aforementioned appeals under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short also referred to as "the Act") was untenable in law, there being no provision therefore. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court, rendered in CCE vs. Hongo India (P) Ltd. (2009) 223 CTR (SC) 225 : (2009) 22 DTR (SC) 9: (2009) 315 ITR 449 (SC), the applications were rejected considering the then state of s. 260A of the Act. The Revenue took the matter to the Hon'ble apex Court and, by its order dt. 24th Jan., 2011, passed in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 2611 of 2011, the order impugned was interfered with in face of an amendment, vide Finance Act No. 14 of 2010 in s. 260A of the Act. Thereby, this issue has been remitted to this Court for a fresh disposal on the merits on a scrutiny of the cause offered by the applicants for condonation of delay.

2. We have heard Mr. U. Bhuyan, senior advocate assisted by Mr. B Chakraborty, advocate for the applicant and Dr. A.K. Saraf, senior advocate assisted by Ms. N. Hawelia, advocate, for the opposite party.

3. The factual background in both the miscellaneous cases is identical and the grounds enumerated seeking condonation of delay, are also same. The pleaded stand of the party logically is also common in both the miscellaneous cases. It would thus suffice to record the versions of the parties as available in the pleadings of Misc. Civil No. 1029 of 2009.

4. According to the applicant, the certified/authenticated copies of the orders dt. 31st Aug., 2007, passed by the Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati, rendered in ITA No. 44/Gau/2004 and ITA. No. 51/Gau/2004 for the asst. yr. 2000-01 (in Misc. Civil No. 1029) and in ITA No. 7/Gau/2001 and CO No. 7 of 2006 for the asst. yr. 1996-97 (in Misc. Civil No. 1654 of 2009) were received by the office of the CIT, Guwahati-II on 20th Sept., 2007, and 24th Sept., 2007, respectively. On receipt thereof, a tentative view was taken to file an appeal against the same. The AO was directed to forward all relevant documents with his comments through the office of the Addl. CIT, Range-3, Guwahati, which was received by him (AO) on 9th Oct., 2007. It was averred that the AO, meanwhile, got seriously preoccupied in the work for "completing 99 time barring assessments arising out of search and seizure cases by 31st Dec., 2007". As the exercise was voluminous and complex in nature, there was a considerable delay in processing the same, the situation being compounded by acute shortage of staff in the office of the AO. As the situation was beyond his control, the AO, eventually, despatched the relevant documents for filing the appeals as contemplated to the office of the CIT, Guwahati-II (for short referred to as "the applicant"), which was received by him on 11th Jan., 2008. The applicant has stated that immediately, thereafter, his office wrote to the standing counsel of the Department on the same date seeking his opinion regarding the advisability of filing an appeal under s. 260A of the Act. The advice was sought in this regard vis-à-vis five years of the Tribunal order relating to the assessment years, i.e., 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 2000-01 and 2002-03. According to the applicant-Revenue, the learned standing counsel, though submitted his opinion (on) 16th Jan., 2008, it was qua the asst. yr. 2002-03 only. This when detected, the office of the applicant reverted to the standing counsel on 22nd Jan., 2008, seekin