What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of one day in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to a bona fide belief regarding the limitation period and the date of service of the assessment order. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored for a decision on merits.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine as being barred by limitation by two days. The assessment order was dated 12.03.2025, and the appeal was filed on 12.04.2025.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed before the CIT(A) was barred by limitation, and if the delay should be condoned.

Abhi Nalinbhai Ladani, Bhavnagar vs ITO | ITAT Ahmedabad 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Ms. Fenil Mehta, AR

Hearing: 06/07/2026Pronounced: 07/07/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.738/Ahd/2026 िनधा�रण वष� /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Abhi Nalinbhai Ladani, ITO Plot No. 740, Vijayraj Nagar, बनाम/ Ward-1(2), v/s. Bhavnagar-364001 Bhavnagar �थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AODPL6377C (अपीलाथ�/ Appellant) (�� यथ�/ Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Fenil Mehta, AR Revenue by : Shri Drop Singh Meena, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/07/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 07/07/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] dated 29/01/2026 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2020- 21. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) to submit that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine holding the same as barred by limitation by two days.

ITA No.738/Ahd/2026 Abhi Nalinbhai Ladani vs. ITO Asst.Year 2020-21 2 3. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the impugned assessment order was passed by the A.O. on 12.03.2025 and whereas, the appeal was filed by the assessee before him on 12.04.2025. He, therefore, held that the appeal was barred by limitation of 2 days. He noted that the assessee had not filed any application for condonation of delay, he, accordingly, dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine.

Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that though the impugned assessment order was dated 12.03.2025, but the same was actually sent on email of the assessee on 13.03.2025. She has relied upon the copy of the email in this respect. She has further submitted that the appeal was duly filed on 12.04.2025. She has contended that the assesse was under bona fide belief that the limitation to file the appeal before the CIT(A) was one month, whereas, the same is 30 days. She has submitted that if the date of service of notice is excluded then the appeal was filed within the limitation period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the impugned assessment order. She has further submitted that the assessee has a fair case on merits.

Considering the above submissions of the Ld. AR and considering that the impugned assessment order was sent on the email of the assesse on 13.03.2025 and that the assessee was under bona fide belief that the limitation period for filing the appeal was one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order of the A.O. and considering the shortness of the delay of 1 day only, without further deliberating upon the matter, the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is hereby condoned. The

ITA No.738/Ahd/2026 Abhi Nalinbhai Ladani vs. ITO Asst.Year 2020-21 3 impugned order of the CIT(A) is hereby set-aside. The matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for decision afresh on merits, irrespective of the delay in filing the appeal.

With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 07/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Narendra Prasad Sinha) (Sanjay Garg) Accountant Member Judicial Member

अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 07/07/2025 Tanmay, Sr. P.S. TRUE COPY आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु� अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)-(NFAC) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation (dictation pad is attached with the file)) : 06.07 2026 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the : 07.07.2026 Dictating Member. 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S : 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating : Member for pronouncement. 5. Date on which fair order placed before Other Member : 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the : 07.07.2026 Sr.P.S./P.S. 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk. : 07.07.2026 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk. : 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar : for signature on the order. 10. Date of Despatch of the Order :

ABHI NALINBHAI LADANI,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), BHAVNAGAR , BHAVNAGAR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments