NTH PRODUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2363/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 October 2026AY 2017-186 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 170 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) should be condoned. While acknowledging that the medical ground was raised for the first time before the Tribunal, the Tribunal noted that the medical records supported the existence of the illness during the relevant period, thus not being an afterthought. Considering the assessee firm's constitution (husband and wife as sole partners), the illness and surgery of one partner could reasonably affect both partners' ability to attend to appellate proceedings. The Tribunal found this explanation to furnish sufficient cause for condoning the delay. However, it was noted that the assessee should have presented the complete explanation and documents to the Ld. CIT(A) initially. The delay was condoned subject to the assessee paying costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within 15 days. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) to admit the appeal and adjudicate the grounds on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the assessment additions.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. NTH Productions, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18 against an assessment order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the Assessing Officer under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was filed with a delay of 170 days. The Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay, finding the assessee's explanation insufficient, and dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The assessee, aggrieved by this order, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 170 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be condoned, turning on the sufficiency of the cause shown by the assessee. Assessee's Contention: The delay was due to a thyroid-related ailment and subsequent surgery of the wife, who is one of the two partners in the assessee firm. This medical condition and hospitalization prevented the partners from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The delay was neither deliberate nor intentional. The assessee relied on an affidavit and medical records to support this explanation, seeking restoration of the matter for adjudication on merits. Revenue's Contention: The Ld. DR opposed the condonation of delay, arguing that the assessee provided a different explanation before the Ld. CIT(A) which was found insufficient. The current explanation of a medical condition was a new reason advanced before the Tribunal and did not warrant interference with the Ld. CIT(A)'s order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Ravish SoodShri Madhusudan Sawdia

Hearing: 15/10/2026

Per Madhusudhan Sawdia, A.M.: This appeal is filed by M/s. NTH Productions (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 12.05.2026 for the A.Y. 2017-18

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

ITA No 2363 of 2026 NTH Productions

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2017-18 against the as

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →