Exclusion of time spent before wrong forum can save limitation and require a fresh merits hearing on remand

Time bona fide spent before a wrong forum may be excluded in computing limitation on the principle underlying Section 14 of the Limitation Act, so the appeal was treated as within time. Because the appellate order had dealt only with limitation and not the merits, the matter had to be heard afresh by the Commissioner (Appeals) with proper findings on points for determination, decision, and reasons. The delay was therefore condoned, the limitation objection rejected, and the case remanded for de novo consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the period spent in prosecuting the matter before the wrong forum was liable to be excluded while computing limitation, and whether the matter was required to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consideration.

Analysis: The appeal had been filed before an incorrect authority and was later pursued before the proper appellate forum. The time spent before the wrong forum was held excludable in computing limitation, applying the principle underlying Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act. On that basis, the appeal was treated as within limitation. As the appellate order had been passed only on limitation and not on the merits, the matter was required to be heard afresh by the Commissioner (Appeals) in accordance with the statutory duty to record points for determination, decision, and reasons.

Conclusion: The delay of 253 days was condoned, the limitation objection was rejected, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Time bona fide spent before a wrong forum may be excluded in computing limitation, and where an appeal is treated as within time, a merits decision must follow in accordance with the statutory appellate requirements.

---