Condonation of delay in appeal filing allowed where the explanation was reasonable, so the matter could be heard on merits.

A 49-day delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was treated as satisfactorily explained, as the affidavit attributed the lapse to urgent personal work, subsequent non-attendance of the order during file rearrangement, and the deponent's age, which supported a liberal approach. The delay was therefore condoned, and the appeal was to be restored and heard on merits instead of being rejected on limitation. The stated principle is that a reasonable and adequately explained delay in filing an appeal should be condoned so that disputes are decided on merits rather than defeated on technical grounds.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 49 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was liable to be condoned.

Analysis: The affidavit filed in support of the delay explained that the concerned employee could not attend office due to urgent personal work and later noticed that the order had not been attended to during rearrangement of files. The explanation was found to be plausible, and the circumstances, including the age of the deponent, supported a liberal approach to the delay. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) should therefore have been heard on merits instead of being rejected on limitation.

Conclusion: The delay was held to be condonable, and the matter was remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) to restore the appeal and decide it on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A reasonable and satisfactorily explained delay in filing an appeal should be condoned so that the matter can be decided on merits rather than defeated on technical grounds.

---