JUDGMENT N. Kumar, J.— By consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal, as it could be disposed of on a short point. 2. This appeal is by the Assessee challenging the order passed by the appellate Tribunal dismissing his appeal on the ground of barred by limitation. 3. The Assessee is a Government company engaged in the business of raising and selling of rubber, eucalyptus and bamboo plantation in forest and other areas. The return of income for the assessment year 2003-04 was filed on 2-12-2003 declaring an income of Rs. 12,98,350. The return was subsequently selected for scrutiny and examined the details of books of account produced during the proceedings and thereafter, an order came to be passed. The Assessee filed a petition for rectification of the order under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act (for short hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') claiming certain allowable deductions as per Rule 7A of the Income-tax Rules. The said requisition was rejected. An appeal came to be filed against the said orders, which also came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, they preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. 4. There was a delay of 310 days in preferring the appeal. An application was filed along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay in preferring the appeal. No written objections were filed by the revenue opposing the said application. The Tribunal after hearing the parties was of the view, that the cause shown in the affidavit for condonation of delay do not constitute a sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and therefore, it declined to condone the delay and dismissed the application, and consequently, the appeal also came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the Assessee is before this Court. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 6. The affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay discloses that, after the order was passed by the Commissioner for appeals, there was a change of Managing Director. Aggrieved by the said order, the Assessee is before this Court. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 6. The affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay discloses that, after the order was passed by the Commissioner for appeals, there was a change of Managing Director. Though the Chartered Accountant of the Company opined that it is a fit case for appeal and prepared the requisite papers and even sent them to the Managing Director for signature, it is because of the change of the Managing Director, the importance of the same was not noticed and as it is a Government Company, they took their own time to get the papers signed and to file the appeal. It is in these circumstances, there is a delay of 310 days. The Tribunal has viewed the matter from a very narrow angle. No doubt, it is the law that every days delay has to be explained, but, at the same time, where, Government is the Appellant, having regard to the way that the Government and its officers function, the Courts have been taking lenient view in condoning the delay in the appeals filed by them. In the instant case, it is not disputed after the order came to be passed, the Managing Director was changed and thereafter, the Chartered Accountant took a decision to prefer the appeal and though papers were sent for signature was not signed and appeal was not filed. What is to be seen in such matters is that, the Appellant was negligent and by not filing the appeal within time, whether there is any valuable right of the Appellant, which would be taken away by not condoning the delay in the matters arising under the Income-tax Act, ultimately the question is, what is the tax payable under law. It is not an adversary litigation. An Assessee cannot be charged without statutory authority. Under these circumstances, the approach of the Tribunal cannot be accepted. In that view of the matter, the reasoning given by the Tribunal for not condoning the delay is unsustainable in law. Hence, we are satisfied that the Appellant has made out a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. Hence, we pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. In that view of the matter, the reasoning given by the Tribunal for not condoning the delay is unsustainable in law. Hence, we are satisfied that the Appellant has made out a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. Hence, we pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation is hereby set aside. The application filed for condonation of delay of 310 days in preferring the appeal before the Tribunal is allowed. 7. Consequently, the Tribunal is directed to take on its file, the appeal presented by the Assessee in its original number and decide the appeal on merits without again going into the question of limitation. 8. No costs.