assessee is limited company. Total income of assessee was taken at Rs. 2,10,550. assessee being aggrieved filed appeal. CIT (A) found that appeal was late by 29 days. assessee explained that accountant was on outdoor duty from 22nd Sept., 1983 to 10th Oct., 1983. accountant came to Bombay only on 10th Oct., 1983 and thereafter appeal was filed. CIT(A) noted that though Accountant came on 10th Oct., 1983, still, he took 19 days for filing of appeal for which there was no reasonable cause and, therefore, he dismissed appeal as time barred. counsel for assessee indicated that accountant was on outdoor duty. appeal papers were not ready. After coming to Bombay accountant only took up matter and filed appeal. time taken by accountant was reasonable in sense that he was under bona fide belief that there was still time for filing of appeal. Accordingly, it was urged that CIT (A) should be directed to decide appeal on merits. Departmental Representative, on other hand, contended that assessee was not in position to explain each day's delay and, therefore, order of CIT (A) should be maintained. facts stated by assessee have not been found incorrect by CIT (A). accountant of assessee was away from 12th Sept., 1983 to 10th O c t., 1983. As accountant was away, appeal was delayed. accountant too did not remember exact date by which appeal was to be filed. When he took up matter, it was already late. However, within 19 days appeal was filed. If facts as brought on record before CIT (A) are taken into consideration, it is clear that delay was caused due to absence of accountant of assessee and, therefore, CIT (A) was not justified in dismissing appeal of assessee as time barred. delay in filing appeal, on facts and circumstances of case, is condoned. matter is set aside to CIT (A) for fresh disposal on merits after giving assessee opportunity of being heard. appeal is allowed. *** RASHTRIYA METAL INDUSTRIES LTD. v. SEVENTH INCOME TAX OFFICER