(cid:1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA No.2942 /Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s. Bank of Baroda (e- Vijaya Circle-2(1)(1), Bank)

Room No.575, 5th Floor, C-26, 2 Floor, Boroda Corporate Vs.

Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, M.K. Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 PAN/GIR No.AAACV4791J (Appellant) : (Respondent &

ITA No.2533/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

M/s. Bank of Baroda, Vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, New Delhi Corporate Accounts & Taxation Dept, 2 Floor, Boroda Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 PAN/GIR No.AAACV4791J (Appellant) : (Respondent Assessee by : Shri S. Ananthan, AR &

Shri Nabil Ahmed, AR Respondent by : Shri Vimal Kumar Meena, (CIT DR)

Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar Date of Hearing : 08.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.02.2026

O R D E R

Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

These captioned appeals are cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Mumbai (‘ld. CIT(A)’ for short), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2019-20.

2. The assessee as well as the Revenue have challenged the order of ld. CIT(A) on various grounds and the assessee has raised the legal ground challenging the validity of assessment order on the ground that the assessment order was passed in the name of non-est entity. Since, the legal ground goes to the root of the case, we deem it fit to decide this issue prima-facie before getting into the merits of the case.

3. Brief facts are that the assessee bank is a public sector bank carrying on the banking business where the erstwhile entities namely Vijaya Bank and Dena Bank amalgamated with Bank of Baroda Scheme, 2019 with effect from 01.04.2019. The assessee bank had filed its return of income for the year under consideration dated 30.09.2019 declaring total loss at Rs.1418,82,57,594/- and claimed refund of Rs.694,13,11,216/-. The assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny under E-assessment scheme, 2019 on the following issues:

i. Claim of Any Other Amount Allowable as Deduction in Schedule BP ii. High Creditors/liabilities (BL06)

iii. Loss From Currency Fluctuations iv. Default in TDS v. Default in TDS & disallowances for such Default vi. Refund Claim vii. Taxability of business liability written off u/s 41 or any other section (BL07)

viii. ICDS Compliance and Adjustment ix. Unsecured Loans x. Expenses Incurred for Earning Exempt Income xi. Capital Gains/Income on Sale of Property xii. Business Expenses

4. Notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served upon the assessee.

After considering the assessee’s submission the Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) passed the assessment order dated 30.09.2021 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144(B) of the Act determining total income at Rs.547,10,19,604/- after making addition/disallowances.

5. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority who vide order dated 29.03.2024 had partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.

6. Both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before us against the order of Ld.

CIT(A) on various grounds.

7. Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) for the assessee commenced the argument on the legal ground raised by the assessee where the Ld. AR contended that the assessment order was passed in the name of Vijaya Bank post amalgamation where the said bank has been amalgamated with Bank of Baroda. The Ld. AR further contended that Vijaya Bank ceased to exist post-merger with Bank of Baroda. The impugned assessment order ought to have passed in the name of the amalgamated entity and not in the name of amalgamating entity. The Ld. AR contended that this issue was also raised before the first appellate authority who erred in dismissing the said ground by relying on the decisio