JUDGMENT : (ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.) The petitioner is an assessee under the respondents and this writ petition is submitted by the petitioner being aggrieved by Ext.P9 appellate order passed by the 2 nd respondent, rejecting the appeal, solely on the ground of delay. The facts of the case in brief is as follows: As against Ext.P1 assessment order issued by the 1 st respondent for the assessment year 2017-2018, dated 14.09.2020, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 appeal on 23.09.2024 along with Ext.P7 application to condone the delay. The case of the petitioner is that, as the entire business of the petitioner suffered serious setbacks and proceedings against them were initiated by the financing banks, by way of SARFAESI Act and otherwise, their main focus was to defend such proceedings, for survival. Therefore, an appeal against Ext.P1 assessment order could not be filed within a reasonable time and the same could be filed only in the year 2024 along with Ext.P7 delay petition. The 2 nd respondent appellate authority considered the same and observing that the reasons mentioned in Ext.P7 are not sufficient, rejected the delay condonation application and consequently the appeal was also rejected as per Ext.P9. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging the same. 2. I have heard Sri.Jayakrishna.R, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Arun Ajay Shankar, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that, there were sufficient reasons which prevented the petitioner from approaching the appellate authority in time and therefore a lenient approach ought to have been taken by the 2 nd respondent. 4. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader stoutly opposes the said contention by pointing out that the delay in this case is 1446 days and there is no justifiable reason to interfere in Ext.P9 order particularly because of the fact that, the appeal was dismissed taking note of the fact that, no proper explanation has been given by the petitioner in Ext.P7 delay petition. 5. After considering all relevant aspects including the averments made by the petitioner in Ext.P7, I find that the averments in the delay petition are very casual and reasons mentioned are vague. However, in the writ petition, the petitioner had produced several documents to substantiate the reasons for the delay. 5. After considering all relevant aspects including the averments made by the petitioner in Ext.P7, I find that the averments in the delay petition are very casual and reasons mentioned are vague. However, in the writ petition, the petitioner had produced several documents to substantiate the reasons for the delay. As far as the Ext.P9 order, which is impugned in this case is concerned, the same was passed mainly taking note of the fact that in Ext.P7, the reasons are not properly mentioned. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner has a good case on merits and therefore unless a proper opportunity is granted to contest the matter on merits, serious prejudice would be caused to him. Taking note of all the relevant aspects I find that, since the contentions of the petitioner were not considered on merits, it is only proper that a reasonable opportunity be granted to him, rather than rejecting the contentions on technical grounds. 6. Of course as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader the delay in filing the appeal is very huge. However, the petitioner seeks for an opportunity to properly explain the delay by filing an additional affidavit along with necessary records. I find it reasonable to grant such an opportunity in view of the fact that the rejection of the delay condonation application was made by the 2 nd respondent because of the reason that the explanation offered in Ext.P7 were very casual. Since the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to contest the matter on merits, a lenient view can be taken. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, quashing Ext.P9, with a direction to the 2 nd respondent to reconsider the application for condonation of delay, provided, the petitioner submits an additional affidavit explaining the reasons along with records to substantiate the same. Such an affidavit and the records shall be produced before the 2 nd respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and in such an event, the Ext.P7 shall be reconsidered, and a fresh decision shall be taken after hearing the petitioner. Such decision shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Such decision shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that in case the affidavit as referred to above is not submitted within the period specified above, the Ext.P9 shall stand confirmed.