Allowing the appeal the Court held that the assessee was an individual and may not be well versed in law. It was not as if the assessee acted deliberately in not approaching the advocate after he received the order of the revisional authority. The revisional authority had remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to redo the exercise of assessment and the assessee could very well have been under the impression that the consequential order of the Assessing Officer alone required to be challenged and not the order of the revisional authority. The explanation for the delay offered by the assessee could not be said to smack of mala fides nor that it was put forth as a part of a dilatory strategy, and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay of the period of 154 days in filing the appeal and taken up the matter on its merits. The rejection of application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, was not justified. Referred  N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123  ( AY.2011-12)