The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal approach in assessing sufficient cause for delay, especially in cases involving governmental institutions, and the importance of providing a convincing and rational explanation for condonation of delay.

Amitava Roy, J.

1. The miscellaneous cases have been registered on' applications filed under section 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 dated 28-10-2009, 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 section 5 of the Act, 1963, in filing the aforementioned appeals under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short also referred to as "the Act") was untenable in law, there being no provision there for. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India (P.) Ltd. (2009) 315 ITR 449 (SC), the applications were rejected considering the then state of section 260A of the Act. The Revenue took the matter to the Hon'ble Apex Court and, by its order dated 24-1-2011, passed in petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 2611 of 2011, the order impugned was interfered within face of an amendment, vide Finance Act No. 14 of 2010 in section 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 M.C. No. 1029 of 2009.

4. According to the applicant, the certified/authenticated copies of the orders dated 31-8-2007, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati, rendered in I.T.A. No. 44 (Gauhati) of 2004 and I.T.A. No. 51 (Gauhati) of 2004 for the assessment year 2000-01 (in M.C. No. 1029) and in I.T.A. No. 7 (Gauhati) of 2001 and CO No. 7 (Gauhati) of 2006 for the assessment year of 1996-97 (in M.C. No. 1654 of 2009 were received by the office of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Guwahati-II on 20-9-2007, and 24-9-2007, respectively. On receipt thereof, a tentative view was taken to file an appeal against the same. The assessing officer was directed to forward all relevant documents with his comments through the office of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-3, Guwahati, which was received by him (assessing officer) on 9-10-2007. It was averred that the assessing officer, meanwhile, got seriously preoccupied in the work for "completing 99 time barring assessments arising out of search and seizure cases by 31-12-2007". 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 assessing officer. As the situation was beyond his control, the assessing officer, eventually, dispatched the relevant documents for filing the appeals as contemplated to the office of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Guwahati-II (for short referred to as "the applicant"), which was received by him on 11-1-2008. 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 section 260A of the Act. The advice was sought in this regard vis-a-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,