VIVA MAGNA WHEELERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 1090/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 October 2026AY 2018-199 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 190 days in filing the appeal, finding that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were sufficient and fell within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. MST Katiji and others. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural rules are meant to aid justice and that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The Tribunal noted that the learned CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order due to the assessee's non-compliance with hearing notices. However, since the assessee was now represented and wished to pursue the litigation, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide all necessary documents and cooperate fully in the proceedings. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund, for not appearing before the CIT(A) without reasonable cause despite multiple opportunities. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal also directed the assessee to provide an operational email address to the CIT(A) for future communication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Viva Magna Wheelers Private Limited, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore Bench, against an order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2018-19. The appeal was filed with a delay of 190 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay, attributing it to the departure of an employee whose email ID was used for communication, leading to non-receipt of notices and the appellate order. The ITAT noted that the reasons for delay were within the parameters for condonation as laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. MST Katiji and others.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 190 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee regarding non-receipt of notices due to an employee's departure and incorrect email communication. Assessee's contention: The delay was beyond the assessee's control, caused by circumstances such as the departure of the employee in charge of assessment proceedings and the use of his email address for communication, leading to non-receipt of notices and the appellate order. The delay was not deliberate or intentional. The assessee relied on the principles laid down in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. MST Katiji and others. Revenue's contention: No specific contention recorded in the judgment regarding the condonation of delay. 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming additions totaling Rs. 31,39,090/-, including disallowance of delayed PF/ESI contributions (Rs. 13,36,080/-), disallowance of bonus under Section 43B (Rs. 17,06,066/-), and disallowance of expenses under Section 37(1) (Rs. 96,945/-), and in determining the assessed loss as Rs. 1,26,96,440/- against the returned loss of Rs. 1,58,32,530/-. Assessee's contention: The additions were made without calling for information during regular scrutiny assessment. Specifically, the disallowance of Rs. 13,36,080/- under Section 36(1)(va) was erroneous as payment was made before filing the return of income. The assessee relied on the jurisdictional Karnataka High Court's decision in Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd., which held that employee's contribution under Section 36(1)(va) is covered under Section 43B, and if paid before the due date for filing the return, deduction is allowable. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective. The disallowance of bonus under Section 43B was based on surmises. The disallowance of Rs. 96,945/- under Section 37(1) for interest on late TDS/TCS payment was compensatory and allowable, relying on CIT v Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Lachmandas Mathuradas v. Commissioner of Income-tax (SC). Revenue's contention: No specific contention recorded in the judgment regarding the merits of the additions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 43B,Section 37(1),Section 36(1)(va),Section 139(1),Section 143(1),Section 143(3),Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 27.08.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National

ITA 1090/BANG/2025 VIVA MAGNA WHEELERS PRIVATE LIMITED

Faceless Appeal Centre,

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 43B

All 7,161 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →