- (1.) HEARD Shri A.N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue.
(2.) NO one has put in appearance on behalf the Tribunal ('B' Bench), Allahabad,
(3.) WHEREBY the appeal of the Revenue against the order of the CIT(Appeal) -I, Kanpur, could have been a ground for condoning the delay for filing the appeal, but it could not be a ground for authorisation In our opinion, the observation of the Tribunal is too pedantic and also not correct. Once the curfew was imposed prior to the date on which the limitation was expiring, the delay may have been caused in taking the authorisation also, as it is well known that during the imposition of curfew, the movement is completely restricted and there could have been genuine difficulty in getting authorisation. That apart, there was only a delay of five days and it is well -settled that the words "sufficient cause" used in s. 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay is to be liberally construed. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions of the apex Court : (i) Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 62 CTR (SC) 23 : (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) : (1987) 62 Comp Cas 370 (SC) : (1987) 66 STC 228 : (1987) AIR 1987 SC 1353 and (ii) State of West Bengal vs. Administrator, Howrah Municipality AIR 1972 SC 749. ;