All these appeals have been filed simultaneously on 16-2-1987. There is no dispute about factum that each and every one of these appeals has been filed late by 402 days. Registry of Tribunal, therefore, issued notice to each of appellants to show cause as to reasons for delay. In each case, explanation has been filed by person concerned. reason for delay given is that on appeal filed against each assessment concerned in each case, AAC made order on 15-10-1985. This order was served upon each assessee on 11-11-1985. According to assessees, main issue in appeal before AAC was with regard to valuation of interest of each assessee in firm known as M/s. Narsingh Dass & Sons. WTO had held that genuineness of above firm had not been proved and as such, assets belonging to firm were liable to be included in hands of respective partners as their individual assets. 1d. AAC found from record that instrument of partnership and deed o f dissolution had not been filed before WTO. These were, however, filed before him. He observed that genuineness of firm has not been conclusively proved and at best it could be treated as AOP. According to assessee, AAC further held that while valuing interest of assessees in said firm / AOP deduction was not to be allowed for certain liabilities claimed by assessee as standing in balance sheet of said concern, because according to AAC relevant statement of accounts had not been prepared. According to assessee, above findings of 1d. AAC recorded in his order dated 15-10-1985 were factually incorrect and, therefore, applications dated 25-11-1985 u/s. 35 of W. T. Act were filed by these assessees for relevant assessment years pointing out that balance sheets of said firm/ AOP had in fact been prepared and filed before AAC and it was contended that as such, there was mistake of fact denying deduction of liabilities to these assessees. petition states that 1d. AAC accepted said applications u/s. 35 and gave directions to WTO to value interest of assessees in aforesaid firm/ AOP, by scrutinising balance sheets which were to be produced b y assessees before him. This order of rectification u/s. 35 of Act was made by 1d. AAC in each case on 31-12-1985. Although there is no evidence of its receipt by these assessees, yet claim has been made in these petitions that said order was so received by assessees as to be within time for filing appeals against orders dated 15-10-1985. 2. After recording above in petition for condonation of delay, it is averred that since 1d. AAC had accepted claim of assessees that deduction for liability should be considered after scrutiny of balance sheets of above firm/ AOP in order u/s. 35, assessees were advised by Shri Brijesh Mathur, C. A., that there remained no necessity for filing appeals against order of AAC dated 15-10-1985. revenue, however, filed appeal against order made u/s. 35 on 31-12-1985 and when assessees received copy of memo of appeal filed by revenue, assessees did not file any cross-objections. appeals filed by revenue, in these cases, were disposed of by Tribunal by its consolidated order dated 24th Dec., 1986. This order of Tribunal was served upon assessees on 15-1- 1986. In this order, assessees found that for reasons recorded therein, Tribunal held that there was no mistake in orders passed by 1d. AAC disposing of assessees' appeals on 15-10-1985 since, there was no mistake apparent from record in order of 1d. AAC dated 15-10-1985, Tribunal held that orders passed by AAC u/s. 35 of W. T. Act on application made by these assessees were without jurisdiction. revenue's appeals were, therefore, allowed by cancelling these orders. 3. In these circumstances, these appeals have been filed simultaneously o n 16-2-1987. There is limitation in each case with delay of 402 days. explanation on these facts given for this delay is that order of 1d. AAC dated 15-10-1985 in each case had been modified in favour of assessees and thus, at that stage, there was no occasion for assessees to file appeals against order of 1d. AAC dated 15-10-1985. revenue's appeals by Tribunal against order of AAC dated 31-12-1985. After receipt of this order assessees has not lost much time and has filed these appeals after consulting counsel and as such, delay of 402 days in each case is on account of sufficient cause and requires to be condoned. To support this claim affidavit of Shri B. C. Mathur, son of Shri Hem Chand R/o 6/13, Western Extn. Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, sworn on 11-8-1987 has been filed before us. In this affidavit, Shri B. C. Mathur has averred that he advised, as claimed by these assessees, and, therefore, delay in filing these appeals occurred. 4. 1d. counsel for assessees relying upon judgment of Supreme Court in case [1955] 1 SCR 114 (sic) and another judgment of Supreme Court in case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi [1979] 118 ITR 507 contended that mistake of counsel in advising these assessees wrongly resulting in inordinate delay in filing these appeals may be taken as sufficient ground as assessees bona fide believed on this advice that after order of 1d. AAC made u/s 35 on 31-12-1985 nothing more was required to be done. It was contended that since it was bona fide belief and neither device to cover ulterior purpose nor attempt to save limitation in underhand way, explanation of assessees constitutes sufficient cause for condoing delay. 5. 1d. counsel for assessees submitted that Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is empowered to admit appeal, if it is satisfied that there w s sufficient cause for not presenting appeal within statutory time provided, as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Arun S. Meher v. M. A. Twigg, CWT [1985] 153 ITR 131. It was prayed, therefore, that delay in each case be condoned and appeals admitted for hearing on merits. 6. Opposing these submissions, 1d. D. R. projected that petition is merely self-serving device because in very first ground taken up in each case there is grievance that 1d. AAC erred in holding that appellants' interest in partnership is in fact not so but properties were individual properties of appellants. According to 1d. DR it was, therefore, clear that when order u/s. 35 was made by 1d. AAC on 31-12-1985 it could not have given type of satisfaction projected in application seeking condonation of delay. He projected that in application u/s. 35, genuineness of existence of firm had not been required to be reviewed or questioned in any other manner. Therefore, it is clear that assessee failed to avail of right of appeal against order of AAC dated 15-10-1985 with in statutory period provided and is now making effort to make entry by back door. explanation is not factually correct and is only device to save assessees from delay which occurred due to laches. There was, according to him, no justification for condonation of delay and appeals deserve dismissal in limine. For these submissions, reliance was placed by him on case of Raju v. CIT [1983] 14 TAXMAN 198(Bom.). 7. After hearing both sides, we find that there is no sufficient cause shown by these assessees to us to arrive at such satisfaction so as to condone inordinate delay of 402 days. We find from explanation filed by assessees for delay and on persual of averments made in affidavit filed by Shri B. C. Mathur, C. A. that type of advice that assessees claim to have received and that 1d. C. A. avers to have given would not be coming forth from learned counsel, who can give type of reasons given in affidavit leading to delay, which is under consideration for condonation. careful perusal of orders made by AAC on 15-10-1985 and on 31-12-1985, shows that assessees could not have got type of relief that it claims it believed, it would receive from ITO at directions of AAC contained in order of amendment dated 31-12-1985 made u/s. 35 of W. T. Act. Therefore, very premises on which explanation for delay starts, to our mind, are incongruous with facts of case. 8. We also find that at very material time, when after order of AAC made u/s. 35 of I. T. Act, revenue put up challenge to it before Tribunal, type of belief that assessees claim they carried would have definitely been shattered and counsel, as learned as one assessees had, would have not continued to advise assessees not to challenge original order of AAC made on 15-10-1985. After Tribunal's order dated 24th Dec., 1986 allowing appeals of revenue against order of AAC made u/s 35 of Act on 31-12-1985 was received by assessees, assessees realised grave position in which all these assessees had come to be trapped on account of gross negligence leading to laches. 9. We find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) has laid down guidelines in such matters for condonation of delay. When we apply these guidelines, we find firstly, delay is inordinate. It extends over period of more than one year. Secondly, explanation given by assessees and averments made by C. A. in his affidavit dated 11-8-1987 do not reflect factual position and in fact, important dates like receipt of order of AAC made u/s. 35 on 31-12-1985 and receipt of copy of appeal memo filed by revenue before Tribunal though known to assessees apparently have not been placed before us. Therefore, when we consider explanations of assessees on entirety of facts and circumstances of case along with guidelines laid down by Supreme Court for condonation of delay in such matters, we find ourselves unable to reach satisfaction that delay was due to sufficient cause. We, therefore, reject appeals as barred by limitation. Appeals dismissed. *** UMESH DAS SETH v. INCOME TAX OFFICER