Limitation and condonation of delay: appeal filed within the condonable period could not be dismissed for want of a formal application.

An appeal filed after two months but within the further one-month condonable period under section 85(3A) could not be rejected merely because no separate delay condonation application accompanied it. The accompanying departmental letter stating that the appeal could be filed within three months reinforced a bona fide belief on limitation, and the absence of a formal condonation request was not treated as fatal. Dismissal of the appeal solely on that ground was unsustainable, and the matter was remitted for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) could be dismissed for want of a delay condonation application when it was filed after two months but within the further condonable period of one month, and the covering letter accompanying the order stated that appeal could be filed within three months.

Analysis: Section 85(3A) permits filing of the appeal within two months and authorises condonation for a further month on sufficient cause being shown. The appeal in question was filed within that outer limit. The accompanying departmental letter stated that the appeal could be filed within three months, which supported the appellant's belief regarding limitation. In these circumstances, the absence of a separate condonation application was not treated as fatal, and the dismissal of the appeal merely on that ground was found unsustainable.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) was unsustainable and the order was set aside, with the matter sent back for decision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appeal is filed within the statutorily condonable period and the surrounding communication reasonably induces a bona fide belief about the filing period, dismissal solely for absence of a formal delay condonation application is unjustified.

---