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

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 assessment order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). However, there was a delay of 170 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT(A), being dissatisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee, declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR") submitted that the assessee is a partnership firm consisting of two partners, who are husband and wife. During the relevant period, the wife was suffering from a thyroid-related ailment for which she was hospitalized and underwent surgery. In support of this explanation, the assessee furnished an affidavit under Rule 10 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, along with copies of the medical records. The Ld. AR submitted that the medical condition of the wife and the circumstances attending her treatment prevented the partners from attending to the filing of the appeal within the prescribed period. He submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and requested that the delay before the Ld. CIT(A) be condoned and the matter be restored to his file for adjudication on merits after granting the assessee one more opportunity of being heard. 5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR") opposed the prayer for condonation of delay. He submitted that the assessee had furnished a different explanation before the Ld. CIT(A), which was not found sufficient to condone the delay. According to the Ld. DR, the assessee was now advancing a new reason before the Tribunal, and such a change in explanation did not warrant interference with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He accordingly requested that the impugned order be upheld. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue before us is whether the delay of 170 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be condoned. The Ld. AR attributed the delay to the medical condition and surgery of one of the two partners of the assessee-firm, who are husband and wife, and relied upon the affidavit and supporting medical records. The principal objection of the Ld. DR is that this explanation differs from the reason furnished before the Ld. CIT(A) and has been advanced for the first time before the Tribunal. We have considered this objection. Although the medical ground has been raised for the first time before us, the medical records furnished in support thereof show that the illness and treatment existed during the relevant period. Thus, the explanation is supported by contemporaneous material and cannot be regarded as an afterthought merely because it was not advanced before the Ld. CIT(A). Having regard to the constitution of the assessee-firm, consisting of husband and wife as its only partners, the illness, hospitalization and surgery of one partner would reasonably have affected the ability of both partners to attend to the appellate proceedings. In these circumstances, the explanation furnishes sufficient cause for condoning the delay. At the same time, the assessee ought to have placed the complete and correct explanation, together with the supporting documents, before the Ld. CIT(A) at the first instance. Taking an overall view of the facts and circumstances, we consider it appropriate to condone the delay of 170 days, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- by the assessee to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall furnish proof of such payment before the Ld. CIT(A). 7. Subject to the aforesaid payment, the delay of 170 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) stands condoned, and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to admit the appeal and adjudicate the grounds raised therein on merits, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings and furnish the requisite details and supporting documents. We express no opinion on the merits of the additions made in the assessment. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the condition stated above. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16th October, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 16th October, 2026. Vinodan/sps Copy to: