JUDGMENT : Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. In these group of petitions, issues involved are identical. We may record facts from Special Civil Application No. 17186 of 2015. 2. Petitioner is an individual and is an employee of ONGC. At the relevant time, he was posted at Bharuch. He had filed the return of income for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, in which, during the reassessment proceedings, the question of payment of tax on certain benefits provided by the employer, such as conveyance, maintenance, reimbursement uniform allowance etc. came up for consideration. It appears that such issues were raised with respect to large number of employees of ONGC working at Bharuch and Ankleshwar by reopening the assessments. In the orders of reassessment passed by the Assessing Officer, he made certain additions on this count. The petitioner did not challenge such order of assessment for a considerable period of time by filing appeals before the appellate commissioner. He however, filed three separate appeals, on or around 12.09.2014. He had also filed applications for condonation of delay and made detailed submissions before the Commissioner why such delay should be condoned. The Appellate Commissioner however, by passing three separate orders which are all impugned in this petition, rejected the petitioner's application for condonation of delay. Here again, we may notice the contentions of the petitioner and the view of the appellate commissioner from the order dated 29.04.2015 concerning the assessment year 2006-07, copy of which is produced at Annexure-A to the petition. 3. The petitioner in order to explain the delay, had made following representation before the Appellate Commissioner. "(i) I received the subject assessment order of ld. AO on or about 31.12.2011 and I was to file an appeal by 29.01.2011. (ii) Recently, I came to know regarding your order, in certain appeals of ONGC Employees, deleting the addition made by ld. AOs at Bharuch on account of 20% CMRE, 100% Uniform Allowance etc. respectfully following the order of the honorable ITAT "A" Bench Ahmedabad in ITA No. 163 & 164 Ahmedabad, 2013 in the case of Sureshbhai Mohanbhai Patel v. ITO (4) Bharuch. (iii) I am over assessed on these amounts and as per the appeal being filed. The ld. AO has wrongly collected/recovered the tax and interest amount. respectfully following the order of the honorable ITAT "A" Bench Ahmedabad in ITA No. 163 & 164 Ahmedabad, 2013 in the case of Sureshbhai Mohanbhai Patel v. ITO (4) Bharuch. (iii) I am over assessed on these amounts and as per the appeal being filed. The ld. AO has wrongly collected/recovered the tax and interest amount. (iv) Because of the above subsequent developments in the form of honorable ITAT order referred to herein above, the necessity has arisen to file the appeal belatedly. It is therefore most respectfully prayed that my application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal may kindly be allowed and the appeal admitted in the interest of justice." "Further to the application under reference, it is most respectfully submitted that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Collector Land Acquisition V. MST. Katiji and others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)" relied upon is squarely applicable because of the following reasons, among others. Other reasons, if any, are also furnished here under in support of the subject applications. 1. Applicability of CBDT Circular 8 of 2005 dated 29/08/2015 relied upon during the assessment proceedings as per the judgment of honorable Gujarat high Court dated 15.01.2015 in the case of CIT (TDS) v. ONGC Ltd. (copy attached) 229 taxman Gujarat (2015) 2. Applicability of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R & B Falcon (A) Pty Ltd. V. CIT (2008) 301 ITR 309 : 169 Taxmann 515 (SC) followed by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the decided case dated 15.01.2015 (Supra) 3. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's Judgment dated 15/1/2015 - Supra- decided the question of law in favor of employees of ONGC Ltd. as regards taxability of uniform Allowance, CMRE etc. on which FBT was payable by the employer were not perquisites liable to be taxed in the hands of employees who received such amounts. 4. Other than the state of Gujarat, the employer of the applicant has offices in most of the states in India. The Income tax Department has not re-opened the cases of ONGC employees in those states and also not treated the employer as the assessee in default for non deduction of tax on the above amounts paid to the employees. 5. Other than the state of Gujarat, the employer of the applicant has offices in most of the states in India. The Income tax Department has not re-opened the cases of ONGC employees in those states and also not treated the employer as the assessee in default for non deduction of tax on the above amounts paid to the employees. 5. It may kindly be appreciated that the substantial question of law has been decided by honorable Gujarat high Court and therefore substantial justice is to be done to your applicant. I do not know the reasons for proposing not to allow the delay condonation application. Hence, I do not get the opportunity to make the submissions on those reasons at this stage. If, therefore, the application is proposed to be rejected, the reasons therefore may kindly be made known and the adequate and effective opportunity of hearing afforded in the interest of justice In view of above, it is respectfully prayed that the delay in filing of the appeal may be held to be for sufficient cause; the delay condo-nation application allowed in the interest of justice. Authority letter attached". 4. The Commissioner was however not impressed by such explanation. He held that the reasons cited by the assessee did constitute sufficient cause for not filing the appeal. He consequently rejected the prayer for condonation of delay upon which, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. Facts are substantially the same in all cases. In all cases, the delay is approximately three and a half years. The delay is sought to be explained on common ground, which applications have met with similar response from the Commissioner. 6. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners, individual assesses were posted at Bharuch and Ankleshwar by the employer ONGC. They were not aware about the legal technicalities and in any case, had limited financial resources. The tax effect involved was also not very large. For want of proper guidance, they could not file appeal within the time prescribed. However, upon learning about the judgment of the High Court dated 15.01.2015, in which, it was held that the ONGC having paid the fringe benefit tax, on such benefits provided to the employees, the employees could not have been separately taxed, all decided to file appeals. 7. However, upon learning about the judgment of the High Court dated 15.01.2015, in which, it was held that the ONGC having paid the fringe benefit tax, on such benefits provided to the employees, the employees could not have been separately taxed, all decided to file appeals. 7. Counsel further submitted that the Commissioner had in several other cases condoned the delay on identical grounds when the appeals were filed before 30.03.2014. He strangely applied a cut off line of 30.03.2014 and in almost all appeals filed after that date, rejected the applications for condonation of delay. 8. Counsel further submitted that the issue was taken up by the Revenue only with respect to the employees of the ONGC, posted at Ankleshwar and Bharuch and no where else. Now even the High Court has clarified the situation and held that the employees were not liable to pay taxes. Not allowing the petitioners to pursue their appeals would therefore, result into great injustice and financial loss to small employees. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Parikh for the department opposed the petitions contending that mere declaration of law by a later judgment coming to know of which is not a ground for condonation of delay. The petitioners were well aware about their legal remedies and ought to have preferred appeals in time or at any rate within a reasonable period thereafter by offering proper explanation for the delay. 10. Having thus heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused documents on record, we are conscious that a later declaration of law coming to know of which if has prompted a litigant to file an appeal, if may not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay. However, in the present case this was not the only explanation offered. The other explanations were that the petitioners were not aware about their legal rights being small employees and did not have wherewithal to pursue individual appeals. These explanations coupled with the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) himself was convinced about the such explanations in other similar cases would be sufficient reason for us to condone the delay in all cases. 11. We may recall the Commissioner had condoned delay in all such cases on identical explanations whenever the appeals were filed before 30.03.2014. It is true that the facility for filing delayed appeals cannot be extended for indefinite period of time. 11. We may recall the Commissioner had condoned delay in all such cases on identical explanations whenever the appeals were filed before 30.03.2014. It is true that the facility for filing delayed appeals cannot be extended for indefinite period of time. However, the Commissioner could not have drawn an artificial cut off line of before 30th March and after 30th March of a given year. 12. Additionally, we are also conscious of the fact that the issue of tax implication on fringe benefits in the present cases was raked up by the Revenue only with respect to the staff of ONGC posted at Ankleshwar and Bharuch. In other words, the ONGC employees elsewhere in the country were not being subjected to said tax collection. Now even the High Court has clarified the issue. It would be too unjust to maintain the tax collection in such a situation only on the ground of delay. 13. Under the circumstances, impugned orders passed by the appellate Commissioner rejecting the applications for delay condonation of each petitioner for the said three assessment years are quashed. Delay is ordered to be condoned. All appeals will be decided on merits. Each petitioner shall pay cost of Rs.1000/- to the Revenue. 14. With these directions, all petitions are disposed of.