Limitation cannot be sustained where an appeal was originally filed in time and later refiled after rectifying a defect.

An appeal returned for rectification of a court fee stamp defect was treated as having been presented within the statutory period, so the later refiling after correction did not constitute delay in filing. The finding that the appeal was time-barred was therefore unsustainable. The dismissal on limitation was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits after waiving pre-deposit and granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was within limitation and whether the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred was justified.

Analysis: The appeal papers had been returned for rectification of the defect relating to court fee stamp, and the assessee's case was that the appeal had been presented within the statutory period. On the facts noted, the subsequent refiling after rectification did not amount to delay in preferring the appeal. The finding that the appeal was barred by limitation was therefore unsustainable, and the matter required adjudication on merits after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The dismissal on limitation was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits after waiving pre-deposit and granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

---