JUDGMENT : EASWARAN S., J. These appeals impugn the orders dated 19.03.2025 passed by the appellate tribunal under SAFEMA refusing to condone the delay of 204 days in preferring statutory appeals under Section 46 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows: The appellant in these cases is a charitable and religious trust engaged in social welfare, educational and community development activities, operating under the spiritual umbrella of the Believers Eastern Church. The appellant was faced with a proceeding under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 and was served with a show cause notice dated 8.8.2022. Based on the reply dated 22.8.2022, a further show cause notice dated 22.10.2022 was issued for which a reply dated 9.11.2022 was given. Rejecting the reply, a provisional order of attachment was passed under Section 22(4)(b)(i) dated 25.11.2022. Final order under Section 24(4) was also passed by the initiating officer. Later on 6.12.2022, a show cause notice under Section 26 of the Act was issued by the adjudicating authority. The appellant filed a common reply on 5.6.2023, but however, the adjudicating authority rejected the reply and passed final orders on 30.9.2023. The order was received by the appellant on 6.10.2023. The appeal under Section 46 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 ought to have been filed within 45 days from the date of receipt of the said order. The period for filing of the appeals expired on 20.11.2023 and the appeals were filed only on 13.6.2024 with applications for condonation of delay of 204 days. The appellate authority found that the reasons for the delay had not been properly explained and therefore, rejected the applications for condonation of delay and as a consequence, the appeals were also dismissed. Against the said orders, the present appeals are preferred, raising the following common substantial questions of law: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate tribunal was right in law in not condoning the delay of 204 days in filing the appeal? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in law in not considering the sufficient cause furnished and explained by the appellant in condoning the delay of 204 days in filing the appeal?” 3. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in law in not considering the sufficient cause furnished and explained by the appellant in condoning the delay of 204 days in filing the appeal?” 3. Heard Sri.R.Sivaraman, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, assisted by Sri.Nikhil Berny, and Sri.G.Keerthivas, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Department. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that till January, 2024, the appellant was held up in spiritual activities because of the Christmas season, after which, the appellant sought legal advice as regards the maintainability of the proceedings taken by the adjudicating authority and was intending to prefer a writ petition challenging the very initiation of the proceedings. However, subsequently, the appellant got legal advice that it would be better if the appellant chooses to avail the alternate remedy of preferring appeals before the appellate tribunal. It was in these circumstances that the delay of 204 days occurred in these cases. In support of his contention, relied on the decision of this Court in George Antony v. Albert Antony [ RSA No.233/2025 dated 27.5.2025 ]. He further pointed out that the appeals preferred by the benamidar have been numbered as Appeal Nos.37 & 38 of 2024. Those appeals are admitted and posted for further consideration to 5.8.2025. 5. Per contra, Sri.G.Keerthivas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Department would point out that even if it is assumed that the appellant being a religious organization was engaged in the Christmas related activities, the period between January, 2024 till June, 2024 had not been properly explained and therefore, the order passed by the appellate tribunal cannot be termed to be wrong. 6. On consideration of the rival submissions raised across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to succeed, especially in the light of the fact that the appeals preferred by the benamidar are stated to have been admitted by the appellate tribunal and posted to 5.8.2025 for consideration. It would be highly unjust to deny an opportunity to the appellant to contest the proceedings of the adjudicating authority, especially in the light of the contention raised by them that the proceedings under Section 26 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 are not possible against them. 7. It would be highly unjust to deny an opportunity to the appellant to contest the proceedings of the adjudicating authority, especially in the light of the contention raised by them that the proceedings under Section 26 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 are not possible against them. 7. It is true that the merits of the appeals will not be a ground to condone the delay. However, on showing sufficient cause, it is open for the appellate tribunal to condone the delay. A reading of Section 46 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 shows that the appellate tribunal is vested with absolute power to condone the delay beyond 45 days. It is pertinent to mention that there is no outer time limit by which the tribunal is permitted to condone the delay. Therefore, on showing sufficient cause, the Tribunal can always entertain the application for condonation of delay. What constitutes a sufficient cause is, of course, a matter to be decided on the facts of each case. There cannot be a hard and fast rule regarding what constitutes a sufficient cause. It is in this context that the decision rendered by this Court in George Antony (supra requires to be considered. 8. When the principle laid down by this Court in George Antony (supra) is applied, it becomes clear that the appellant has shown sufficient cause in the present case. The case pleaded is that, the appellant had engaged himself in obtaining appropriate legal advice, as to whether the order passed by the adjudicating authority should be questioned before the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially since, according to them, the orders passed are without any jurisdiction. Pertinently, the appeals preferred by the benamidar against the alleged transaction are numbered as appeal Nos.37 & 38 of 2024 and pending consideration before the appellate tribunal. If that be so, this Court is of the considered view that the tribunal could have taken a more pragmatic approach rather than taking a pedantic approach and dismissing the appeals. Thus, the orders dated 19.03.2025 passed by the tribunal impugned in these appeals call for interference. Accordingly, these second appeals are allowed. The orders dated 19.3.2025 passed by the appellate tribunal under SAFEMA, Delhi in MP-PBPT-636/KOCHI/2024 in FPA-PBPT- 217/KOCHI/2024 and MP-PBPT-632/KOCHI/2024 in FPA-PBPT- 215/KOCHI/2024 and MP-PBPT-634/KOCHI/2024 in FPA-PBPT- 216/KOCHI/2024 are set aside. Thus, the orders dated 19.03.2025 passed by the tribunal impugned in these appeals call for interference. Accordingly, these second appeals are allowed. The orders dated 19.3.2025 passed by the appellate tribunal under SAFEMA, Delhi in MP-PBPT-636/KOCHI/2024 in FPA-PBPT- 217/KOCHI/2024 and MP-PBPT-632/KOCHI/2024 in FPA-PBPT- 215/KOCHI/2024 and MP-PBPT-634/KOCHI/2024 in FPA-PBPT- 216/KOCHI/2024 are set aside. The delay of 204 days in preferring the appeals stands condoned. The appellate Tribunal is directed to number the appeals and proceed in accordance with law, along with appeal Nos.37 & 38 of 2024 filed by the benamidar. In order to enable the appellate tribunal to proceed as per the directions of this Court, the appellant herein shall appear before the appellate tribunal on 5.8.2025. On receipt of the copy of the judgment, the appellate tribunal shall number the three appeals filed by the appellant and list along with appeal Nos.37 & 38 of 2024 and proceed in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. No costs.