(cid:1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM (Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17)

DCIT-2(1)(1), M/s. Bank of Baroda, Room No.561, 5^th Floor, 2^nd Floor, Baroda Corporate Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, C 26, G Block, Vs.

Mumbai – 400 020 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 PAN No.AAACB1534F (Appellant) : (Respondent CO Nos.259 & 258/M/2025 (Arising out of ITA Nos.4913 & 4869/Mum/2025)

(Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17)

M/s. Bank of Baroda, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Baroda Corporate Centre, Circle 2(1)(1), Room No.561, Corporate Accounts & Taxation 5^th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Department. 2^nd Floor, C-26, G Block, Maharishi Karve Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 PAN No.AAACB1534F (Appellant) : (Respondent Assessee by : Shri C. Naresh, AR.

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

Date of Hearing : 10.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026

O R D E R

Per Bench:

These appeals are filed by the Revenue and the and cross objections by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Mumbai (‘ld.

CIT(A)’ for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC” for short) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2015-16 & 2016-17. As the facts are identical, we hereby pass a consolidated order by taking ITA No.4913/M/2025 and CO No.259/M/2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 as the lead case.

2. It is observed that the Revenue has filed the appeal belatedly after the period of limitation for which a delay condonation application has been filed. On perusal of the same, we deem it fit to condone the delay by holding that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present appeal. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.

3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal and the assessee has raised the following grounds in its cross objection:

Grounds raised by the Revenue:

"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding reopening u/s. 147 of the Act not valid and the quashing impugned assessment order without considering the fact that the reopening proceedings were initiated on receipt of revenue audit objection.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding reopening u/s. 147 of the Act not valid and the quashing impugned assessment order failing to consider that revenue audit objections are tangible material.

3. The appellant craves the leaves to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the grounds of appeals of appeal as above.”

Grounds raised by the assessee:

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the ground raised by appellant on merits by holding that since the reopening was quashed, it was not necessary to decide on the other grounds on merits.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) ought to have decided on the issue of validity of the order where the additions relating to the erstwhile e-Dena bank were made in the order relating to appellant.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) ought to have decided on the issue of applicability of the provisions of section 115JB to appellant and if applicable on the issue of allowability of bad debts written off, disallowance u/s 14A and pension provided on actuarial valuation in computing the book profits.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) ought to have decided on the issue of addition of pension provided and paid before the due date of filing of return.

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) ought to have decided on the issues relating to deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) on total income computed, reduction of interest granted u/s 244A, red