TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1511
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issed on the ground that the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), was beyond the period which could legally be condoned under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records, including the grounds raised in the present application. 3. The principal contention of the applicant is that, at the time of initial consideration of the appeal before this Tribunal, its application for Condonation of Delay had already been allowed vide Defect Interim Order No. IO-42-43/2022 dated 04.03.2022. According to the applicant, thereafter the appeal was heard on several occasions, arguments on merits were advanced and, vide order dated 25.08.2025, the matter was reserved for orders with liberty to file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2025 be rectified and the appeal be decided on merits. 5. The issue, therefore, is whether the Final Order dated 17.10.2025 suffers from any mistake apparent from the record warranting exercise of power of rectification. 6. At the outset, it is necessary to distinguish between two separate periods of limitation involved in the proceedings. The first relates to delay, if any, in filing an appeal before this Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The second relates to delay in filing the original statutory appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the adjudication order. The legal powers exercisable in respect of the two periods are distinct. 7. The Defect Interim Order No. IO-42-43/2022 dated 04.03.2022, re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitation Act cannot be invoked to enlarge such statutory period. 10. Consequently, even if the explanation furnished by the applicant for the delay is taken to be bona fide, the existence of "sufficient cause" becomes relevant only where the Authority possesses jurisdiction to condone the delay. Sufficient cause cannot confer jurisdiction where the statute expressly withholds it beyond a prescribed period. The reliance placed upon Vishal Buildcon, supra. Significantly, the subsequent proceedings in the very same matter show that the Tribunal, on an application for rectification filed by Revenue, reconsidered the legal position and held that Section 85(3A) does not empower the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay beyond the maximum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 17.10.2025 and a fresh adjudication of the appeal on merits. The jurisdiction for rectification is confined to correcting a patent and self-evident mistake apparent from the record; it cannot be converted into a jurisdiction to review or re-hear the matter merely because another view is sought to be canvassed. The settled principle is that rectification cannot be used as substitute for review. 13. In the present case, the Final Order dated 17.10.2025 proceeded on the admitted position that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed beyond the normal period as well as the further condonable period prescribed under Section 85(3A). Its conclusion is in conformity with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Singh....