The court emphasized that the mere delay in filing appeals cannot be a ground to hold that the same shall not be condoned, especially when the delay has been properly explained and the assessee has raised sufficient issues on merits.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH,J.)

In view of the common issues involved in all the appeals and the parties being the same, these appeals have been taken up together for disposal.

2. The assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) challenging the order of assessment for the assessment years 2000-2001 and 20012002. The said appeals have been filed with the condonation of delay applications seeking to condone the delay of 265, 82, 82, 265, 82 and 82 days respectively. The assessee filed applications before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) stating that the appeals could not be filed against the orders passed by the Assessing Officer within the prescribed time in view of the fact that the assessment orders have been misplaced and the assessee was made to change the authorised representative viz., Chartered Accountant. It is further stated that, in view of the above said facts, the records will have to be received from the erstwhile authorised representative to the present one, there was delay in filing the appeals. The assessee further contended that inasmuch as substantial issues have been raised in the appeals, the same will have to be heard. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has dismissed the appeals by holding that the reasons assigned for the delay cannot be accepted.

3. Challenging the same, the assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal and the Tribunal in turn has allowed the appeals. The Revenue has filed the present appeals challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal by raising the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law by condoning the delay in filing the appeals?

2. Whether there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing especially in the absence of any documentary proof provided by the assessee?"

4. Mr.Patty B.Jeganathan, learned standing counsel for the appellant submitted that the assessee was not diligent enough in filing the appeals within the time. Learned counsel further submitted that the assessee was adopting delaying tactics and therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in exercising the jurisdiction in favour of the assessee. Learned counsel also submitted that even before the Tribunal, after filing the appeals, the assessee was not represented. Hence the learned counsel submitted that the appeals will have to be allowed by setting aside the orders passed by the Tribunal.

5. A perusal of the orders passed by the Tribunal would indicate that the Chartered Accountant, who represented the case of the assessee, has filed an affidavit stating the reasons for the delay. It is the case of the assessee that the appeals could not be filed in time because of the fact that the original orders passed by the Assessing Officer were misplaced and the records from the erstwhile Chartered Accountant could not be received in time. The Chartered Accountant also filed an affidavit explaining the reason for the delay. It is not the case of the Revenue that the said affidavit filed by the Chartered Accountant is false. There is no serious dispute regarding the affidavit filed by the Chartered Accountant.

6. It is not in dispute that there is some delay in filing the appeals by the assessee. However, the mere delay itself cannot be a ground to hold that the same shall not be condoned. In every application filed for condonation of delay, there will be failure on the part of the assessee concerned in approaching the appropriate forum within the time. The Tribunal has found that the delay has been properly explained by the assessee and after convincing with the said reason assigned by the assessee, the Tribunal has exercised its discretion in favour of the assessee. When such a discretion is exercised based upon the materials available on record, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same, especially w