Condonation of delay must be examined on record and with a fair hearing before an appeal is rejected as time-barred.

Where an appeal is rejected as time-barred, the appellate authority must consider any explanation that the filing was attempted earlier and cannot refuse condonation merely because no formal application is on record. If the record does not show that the appellant was told the appeal was delayed, the delay issue requires fresh examination with a fair opportunity to file affidavit or other supporting material and be heard on condonation. The appeal should not be dismissed on limitation without first deciding that question properly; the matter was remanded for reconsideration of delay and, if necessary, the appeal itself.

---

---

Issues: Whether dismissal of the appeal on limitation was sustainable without considering the appellant's plea that the appeal had been attempted to be filed earlier and without affording an opportunity on the question of condonation of delay.

Analysis: The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) had been rejected as time-barred on the footing that no application for condonation of delay had been filed. The order also showed that the appellant was heard on merits, but it did not record that the appellant was informed that the appeal was delayed. In these circumstances, if the communication had in fact been received earlier, the authority was bound to consider the explanation and could not proceed on the premise that no condonation plea had been made. The delay issue therefore required fresh examination, with the appellant being allowed to place affidavit or other material in support of its claim and being given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The dismissal on limitation was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the question of delay afresh and thereafter, if necessary, the appeal.

---