Limitation bar and condonation limits: a hopelessly time-barred appeal cannot be heard on merits, and no hearing right survives.

Where the statute permits condonation only up to a fixed limit, an appeal filed beyond that maximum period cannot be entertained on merits, and the appellate authority lacks power to override the time bar. The dismissal of the appeals as time-barred was therefore upheld, and the Commissioner (Appeals) could not interfere with that limitation-based rejection. A separate hearing was not required before rejecting an appeal that was hopelessly barred beyond the condonable period, because no enforceable right to merits consideration survived and a hearing would be an empty formality. The contrary view was treated as per incuriam and not binding.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Commissioner (Appeals) could interfere with the dismissal of the appeals as time-barred; and (ii) whether a hearing was required before rejecting an appeal that was barred by limitation beyond the period condonable under the statute.

Issue (i): whether the Commissioner (Appeals) could interfere with the dismissal of the appeals as time-barred.

Analysis: The appellate authority had no power to condone delay beyond the statutory period. Since the appeals were filed after the maximum extendable period, the dismissal on limitation could not be faulted.

Conclusion: The challenge to the dismissal on limitation failed and the view of the Commissioner (Appeals) was sustained.

Issue (ii): whether a hearing was required before rejecting an appeal that was barred by limitation beyond the period condonable under the statute.

Analysis: Once the appeal was hopelessly time-barred beyond the condonable period, a hearing could not alter the outcome because the authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal on merits. The contrary view relied upon did not account for the statutory limitation scheme and was treated as per incuriam.

Conclusion: No enforceable right to a hearing survived in such circumstances, and the contrary precedent was held not to be binding.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed as the statutory bar of limitation could not be overcome, and the insistence on a hearing did not entitle the appellant to any relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute does not permit condonation beyond a specified limit, an appeal filed after that limit cannot be entertained on merits, and a hearing in such a case is only an empty formality.

---