JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by Mrs. S. Vimala J.-This tax case (appeal) has been filed by assessee challenging order passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated October 9, 2013, declining to condone delay of 754 days in filing appeal, raising following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in dismissing appeal on ground of limitation in spite of managing partner's continuing multiple medical complications shown as reason in affidavit filed in support of plea for condonation of delay in filing said appeal before them? 2. Whether Appellate Tribunal is correct in law for not condoning delay in filing appeal before them to challenge unreasonable and wrong disallowances which resulted in additions in computation of taxable total income by respondent upon overlooking binding principles laid down by apex court reported in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC); [1987] 62 Comp Cas 370 (SC); [1987] 66 STC 228 (SC)? 3. Whether Appellate Tribunal is correct in law for not considering grounds of appeal formed part of statutory Form No. 36 in challenging wrong addition made in computation of taxable total income even though said disallowances were challenged on various legal facets?" brief facts of case are as follows: assessment in this case relates to assessment year 2007-08. assessee is firm engaged in business of running of lorry on contract basis. assessee had filed its return of income for assessment year in question disclosing income of Rs. 2,83,653. Assessing Officer while completing assessment disallowed entire freight expenditure and 50 per cent. of miscellaneous expenditure claimed by assessee. As against said order of Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who, by order dated December 27, 2010, upheld order of Assessing Officer except reducing disallowance of miscellaneous expenditure at 25 per cent. As against said order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated December 27, 2010, assessee preferred appeal before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal with delay of 754 days. Tribunal, by order dated October 9, 2013, dismissed appeal holding that explanation offered by assessee was not satisfactory. Aggrieved by said order of Tribunal declining to condone delay, assessee is before this court. Heard learned counsel appearing for assessee and learned standing counsel appearing for Revenue and perused materials placed before this court. It is seen that as against order passed by Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) dated December 27, 2010, assessee had filed appeal before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal along with petition to condone delay of 754 days in filing appeal. Tribunal, while dismissing petition, has reasoned that, (a) allegation regarding illhealth and multiple medical complications is bereft of details and as required by law, every day's delay has not been explained; and (b) even assuming that reason is true, appellant is firm containing four partners and, therefore, even if one of partners was not well, other partners could have taken steps to file appeal in time and, therefore, there is no justification to condone delay. justification of this order is under challenge in this appeal. contention of learned counsel for appellant is that term "sufficient cause" has always received liberal interpretation by courts and sought indulgence of this court in setting aside order declining to condone delay. 6.1. Per contra, learned standing counsel for respondent submitted that delay is not of short duration but inordinate and, therefore, strict approach is called for. contentions raised on both sides have to be considered in light of facts pleaded/placed. Admittedly, appellant is partnership firm consisting of four partners. Moreover, one of partners is stated to be son of managing partner. Though medical terminology used in affidavit, i.e., continuing multiple medical complications, gives impression that managing partner should have been under continuous treatment, discharge summaries dated September 10, 2010, July 8, 2011, September 15, 2011, and July 22, 2013, would show that managing partner had been on treatment for very short duration for intermittent period. It would not have been difficult for managing partner if really he had been diligent to file appeal in time. Even assuming that he was on continuous medical treatment, son or other partners should have been diligent in taking up responsibility in filing appeal in time. Therefore, when conduct on part of appellant exhibited gross negligence/procrastinating attitude and incorrect grounds, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal rightly dismissed petition to condone delay. principles involved and approach needed while considering application for condonation of delay has been highlighted in decision reported in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur, Nafar Academy [2013] 5 CTC 547 and relevant portions are extracted for convenient reference: "15. From aforesaid authorities principles that can broadly be culled out are: (i) There should be liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, nonpedantic approach while dealing with application for condonation of delay, for courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. (ii) terms'sufficient cause' should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to obtaining fact situation. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on part of counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to party seeking condonation of delay is significant and relevant fact. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because courts are required to be vigilant so that in ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. (vii) concept of liberal approach has to encapsule conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed totally unfettered free play. (viii) There is distinction between inordinate delay and delay of short duration or few days, for to former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to latter it may not be attracted. That apart, first one warrants strict approach whereas second calls for liberal delineation. (ix) conduct, behaviour and attitude of party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as fundamental principle is that courts are required to weigh scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and said principle cannot be given total go by in name of liberal approach. (x) If explanation offered is concocted or grounds urged in application are fanciful, courts should be vigilant not to expose other side unnecessarily to face such litigation. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to technicalities of law of limitation. (xii) entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and approach should be based on paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. (xiii) State or public body or entity representing collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude." We find that appellant in present case has been lackadaisical in their approach and in nonchalant manner they have tried to seek condonation of delay. Supreme Court in decision referred supra has deprecated practice of showing leniency in unwarranted fact situation. parameters laid down by Supreme Court as to when delay should not be condoned get squarely attracted to facts of present case and, therefore, we find no reason to condone delay. Tribunal was correct in dismissing appeal on that score. In light of above, we find no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, this tax case (appeal) stands dismissed. No costs. *** Ajmeer Sherriff and Co. v. Income-tax Officer