Appeal limitation and delay condonation cannot be applied mechanically when the authority's own order misstates the filing period.

An appeal under section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 must ordinarily be filed within two months, with a further condonable period of one month on sufficient cause. Where the Order-in-Original itself wrongly states that the appeal lies within three months, the assessee may reasonably be misled into filing without a condonation application. The Commissioner (Appeals) should not dismiss such an appeal mechanically without examining whether the procedural lapse was caused by the authority's own misstatement. In the reported matter, the dismissal of the first appeal was held unsustainable and the case was remanded for consideration of delay condonation and decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal of the first appeal for non-filing of a condonation of delay application was sustainable when the Order-in-Original itself stated an incorrect limitation period.

Analysis: Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 prescribes a two-month period for filing an appeal, with a further condonable period of one month on sufficient cause being shown. The Order-in-Original contained a positive misstatement that the appeal lay within three months, which could legitimately induce the appellant to believe that the appeal was within time and that no condonation application was required. A party should not suffer for a mistake made in the authority's own order, and the Commissioner (Appeals) could not dismiss the appeal mechanically without considering the circumstances that caused the procedural lapse.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the first appeal was unsustainable. The order-in-appeal was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the delay condonation application and decide the appeal on merits.

---