Per A. V. Balasubramanyam, Judicial Member - This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT (A), dated 9-12-1985, pertaining to assessment for the year 1983-84.

2. There is a preliminary issue to be considered and that has relation to limitation. There is admittedly a delay of 255 days in the presentation of the appeal. This has been explained by means of an affidavit sworn to by the counsel appearing for the assessee.

3. The appellate order had been served on the counsel on 11-12-1985. The appeal should have been filed on or before 9-2-1986. The appellate had signed all the relevant papers on 20-1-1986 and entrusted the same to one R. Subramanyam, a clerk in the office of the counsel. The said clerk was dealing with the work of filing of the appeals. It seems he defaulted in his office work. The. papers had not been filed before the authority. Subsequently the clerk left the office and thereafter the counsel realised about the lapse on his part in not presenting many appeals. The assessee’s case is one such matter.

4. The affidavit of the counsel deserves to be accepted in the Interest of justice. This Tribunal’ has condoned the delay in certain other appea