An Additional Commissioner (OSD) rejected an application for condonation of delay, stating the order had the approval of the CBDT member. The petitioner challenged the validity of an order said to be passed by the CBDT when the signature on the order belonged to the Additional Commissioner. The Court held that paragraph 9.3 of the Central Secretariat Manual (relating to authentication) does not replace the statutory requirement that CBDT or its authorised member must pass the order under s.119(2)(b). The mere approval of a member does not validate an order purportedly passed by the CBDT when, in fact, it was signed by another officer. The matter was remanded to CBDT or the duly authorised member for fresh consideration and for giving a personal hearing.(AY. 2020-21)