Condonation of delay orders need lawful statutory authority; unauthorised signing officer cannot validate rejection despite recorded approval.

An order rejecting condonation of delay under the Income-tax Act was held invalid where it was signed by an Additional Commissioner without clear lawful authorisation from the competent statutory authority. The power to decide such applications vests in the CBDT, and a mere recital of approval or reliance on office procedure and authentication rules does not cure the absence of jurisdiction. Following earlier decisions on the same issue, the impugned order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration by the CBDT or its duly allocated member after hearing the petitioner and passing a reasoned order.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order rejecting an application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid when it was signed by an Additional Commissioner with stated approval of a competent authority, and whether such order could be sustained.

Analysis: The power to decide applications for condonation of delay vests in the Central Board of Direct Taxes. An order made by an officer other than the Board or its duly authorised member cannot be treated as a valid exercise of that statutory power merely because it recites approval of a competent authority. The record did not show any clear authorisation or lawful delegation to the Additional Commissioner, and the justification based on office procedure or authentication rules did not cure the defect of jurisdiction. Following earlier decisions on the same issue, the impugned order could not be upheld.

Conclusion: The order rejecting condonation of delay was invalid and was quashed. The matter was remanded to the CBDT or its duly allocated member to decide the application afresh after hearing the petitioner and by passing a reasoned order.

---