Limitation for revenue appeals: routine official absence is not sufficient cause for condonation, and an out-of-time appeal is not maintainable.

Delay in filing a revenue appeal was held not to be justified where the only explanation was that the Commissioner was away on an official visit, since such absence is a routine contingency and does not excuse compliance with statutory time limits. The authority was expected to make alternate arrangements to meet the prescribed limitation period. As the appeal was filed beyond that period, it was not maintainable and could not be entertained on merits. The request for condonation of delay was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the revenue appeal deserved condonation, and whether the appeal filed beyond the prescribed period was maintainable.

Analysis: The reason put forward for the delay was that the Commissioner was away on official visit. This was held to be no sufficient justification, as official absence is a routine contingency and does not absolve the authority from making alternate arrangements for compliance with statutory time limits. Since the appeal was not filed within the period prescribed under the governing limitation provision, it could not be entertained on merits.

Conclusion: The application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the appeal was held to be not maintainable.

---