SH. HARI RAM TANWAR,DIWAKARI, ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), ALWAR, ALWAR

ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 24-11-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2013-14. 2.1 At the outset of the hearing, the Bench noted that there is delay of 15 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee filed an application dated 07-02-2024 for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit of assessee Shri Hari Ram who mainly deposed as under:-

2 HARI RAM TANWAR VS ITO, WARD 1(1), ALWAR ‘’7 That I approached many times to my earlier Advocate Shri Rajeev Sharma to know about the status of my case but he had not informed properly to me. Thereafter, the first week of Jan 2023, he informed that he cannot handle my case and I can appoint another CA or advocate for this case. Thereafter, I contacted my known person Shri Duli Chand who had retired from Head Department advised me to contact CA Mukesh Gupta, Alwar. Thereafter I met CA Mukesh Gupta who asked me to collect the bank statement of relevant year. I obtained the bank statement on 22-01-2024 and provided the same to CA Mukesh Gupta, Alwar. Thereafter on 30-01-2014 he changed my primary registered mail and primary registered mobile no. and advised me to file appeal before ITAT with application for condonation of delay. Accordingly, I am now filing appeal before Hon’ble ITAT with request to condone the delay in filing the appeal.’’ 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR objected to such delay made by the assessee in filing the appeal. 2.3 The Bench has heard both the parties and perused the affidavit of the assessee and feel that there is a merit in the submission of the assessee and thus in view of the affidavit of the assessee, the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. 3.1 Further the Bench at the time of hearing of the appeal noted that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of non-explaining the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with following narration. ‘’…46 The appellant has not explained this delay in filing of appeal and has therefore failed to discharge the onus case upon it.