TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the appeal as time-barred under section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, and whether the matter should be remitted for disposal on merits without reference to limitation.
Analysis: The appeal before the appellate authority had been filed beyond the statutory period, and the governing limitation scheme under section 85 did not permit condonation beyond the prescribed extent. In view of the binding limitation principle reiterated by the Supreme Court, the rejection of the appeal on the ground of limitation could not be faulted. At the same time, the petitioner produced material indicating that he was outside the country during the relevant period and was therefore not in a position to file the appeal within time. On that basis, and to enable consideration of the dispute on merits, the impugned order was interfered with and the matter was sent back for fresh disposal without reference to limitation.
Conclusion: The rejection of the appeal on limitation was upheld in principle, but the writ petition succeeded to the extent that the matter was remitted to the appellate authority for decision on merits.
Final Conclusion: The limitation bar was not treated as extendable beyond the statutory limit, yet the assessee obtained a remand for a merits-based adjudication subject to pre-deposit.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a fixed outer limit for condonation of delay, the appellate authority cannot extend it beyond the period expressly permitted by the statute, though the higher court may still remit the matter for consideration on merits in appropriate circumstances.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
