Condonable delay in appeal should be examined on merits where no wilful default or negligence is shown.

An appeal filed beyond the initial limitation period but within the statutory condonable period should not be rejected mechanically where the record shows no wilful default, negligence, mala fides, or lack of due diligence sufficient to refuse condonation. A limitation-based dismissal in such circumstances was treated as unduly technical, with preference given to adjudication on merits when delay remains within the condonable limit. The rejection was held unsustainable, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was liable to be dismissed as time-barred, or whether the delay fell within the condonable period and required consideration on merits.

Analysis: The appeal against the order-in-original was filed beyond the initial statutory period but within the further condonable period contemplated by the appeal provisions. The order under challenge did not record any concrete circumstance showing wilful default, negligence, mala fides, or lack of due diligence sufficient to refuse condonation. In such a situation, rejection on limitation alone was treated as a hyper-technical approach, and the preference was stated to be for decision on merits where the delay is within the statutory condonable limit.

Conclusion: The rejection on limitation was unsustainable. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudication on merits, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand.

---