SUHAS CHANDRA SEN,J. ( 1 ) THE following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal to this court under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the departmental appeal is time-barred in spite of the fact that the relevant appellate order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Calcutta, in Appeal No. 15/c/cit (A)-II of 1981-82, dated January 28, 1982, was served on the appellant-Income-tax Officer, 'a' Ward, Special Circle II, Calcutta, on April 21, 1982, and he submitted the appeal before the Tribunal on May 28, 1982 ?" ( 2 ) THE short question is whether the Tribunal was right in declining to condone the delay in preferring the appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Calcutta, on January 28, 1982. ( 3 ) THE order of assessment was passed by the Income-tax Officer, 'a' Ward, in respect of the assessment year 1978-79 on September 25, 1981. ( 4 ) THE appellate order records that the appeal had been instituted on October 23, 1981, from the order of the Income-tax Officer, 'a' Ward, Special Circle-II, Calcutta (Shri Shankar Banerjee ). The appellate order was served on the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-Ill, on February 9, 1982. The last date for filing the appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal expired on April 10, 1982. The appeal was ultimately filed on May 28, 1982. The delay of one month and 18 days in presenting the appeal had to be explained by the Commissioner upon whom the appellate order was served. ( 5 ) THE relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act are as under :"section- 253. (2) The Commissioner may, if he objects to any order passed by an Appellate Assistant Commissioner under Section 154 or Section 250, direct the Income-tax Officer to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against the order. (3) Every appeal under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) shall be filed within sixty days of the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the assessee or to the Commissioner, as the case may be. " ( 6 ) THE Tribunal was of the view that there was no ground for condoning the delay. (3) Every appeal under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) shall be filed within sixty days of the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the assessee or to the Commissioner, as the case may be. " ( 6 ) THE Tribunal was of the view that there was no ground for condoning the delay. In the application made for condonation of the delay the only ground made out was that the Commissioner of Income-tax had wrongly forwarded the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to the Income-tax Officer, 'h' Ward, Comp District IV, Calcutta, on February 9, 1982, instead of to the Income-tax Officer, 'a' Ward. ( 7 ) IT has not been explained by the Commissioner why this mistake was committed. ( 8 ) IT was stated from the Bar that three years ago, the assessment files of the assessee were within the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, 'h' Ward. But, in the instant case, the assessment order was passed by the Income-tax Officer, 'a' Ward. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had earlier noted that the appeal had been preferred against the order passed by the Income-tax Officer, 'a' Ward. It was for the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to explain how the order was sent to the wrong Income-tax Officer. It has also not been explained when he realised this mistake. The Commissioner has not even stated that he made a mistake. The Tribunal, after considering all the facts, have come to the conclusion that this case does not merit condonation of delay. ( 9 ) IT has not been shown on behalf of the Revenue why the Tribunal has not exercised its discretion in a judicial manner. ( 10 ) ONE judgment of the Supreme Court was cited, viz. , the decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, where the Supreme Court had condoned four days' delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause to condone the delay. The Supreme Court also observed that in a matter like this both the assessee and the Revenue should be treated equally. But in this case, we are not sitting in appeal over the Tribunal's order. Katiji, where the Supreme Court had condoned four days' delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause to condone the delay. The Supreme Court also observed that in a matter like this both the assessee and the Revenue should be treated equally. But in this case, we are not sitting in appeal over the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal has decided not to condone the delay and it has not been shown how the Tribunal has not exercised its discretion in the matter of condonation of delay in a judicial manner. There is little scope for interfering with the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, under the circumstances, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.