IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4611/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2020-2021)

&

ITA No.4610/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2021-2022)

&

ITA No.4609/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2022-2023)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5(2)(1), Mumbai Room No. 571, 5^th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 400020, Maharashtra. …………. Appellant Vs Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited

18^th Floor, Tower I, One World Centre, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 400030, Maharashtra. …………. Respondent [PAN:AABCL6440R]

Appearance For the Appellant/Department : Dr. K. R. Subhash Shri Ram Krishn Kedia For the Respondent/Assessee : Shri Ronak Doshi Ms. Nidhi Agrawal Date Conclusion of hearing : 04.12.2024 Pronouncement of order : 03.03.2025

O R D E R

[

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1. These are three appeals preferred by the Revenue pertaining to Assessment Years 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. Since identical issues were raised in the appeals, the same were heard together and are, therefore, being disposed by way of a common order.

ITA No. 4610/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year 2021-2022)

2. We would first take up the appeal for Assessment Year 2021-2022 preferred by the Revenue against the order, dated 11/07/2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 22/09/2022, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2020-2021. 3. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal :

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.

CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition/adjustment made u/s.43B of the Act in intimation u/s.143(1) of the IT Act in the appeal filed against order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the I. T. Act ignoring the fact that the assessee had not challenged the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act by filling separate appeal.

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.

CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition/adjustment made u/s.143(1) of the IT Act in the appeal filed against order u/143(3) r.ws. 144B of the I.T. Act without calling the remand report on the issue of the addition/adjustment made u/s.143(1) of the IT Act.

3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.

CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO to give credit of additional TDS of Rs. 27,40,247/- reflected in 26AS but not claimed by the assessee in the return of the income.

4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.

CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO to give credit of additional TDS of Rs.27,40,247/-reflected in 26AS but not claimed by the assessee in the return of the income without calling for the remand report on the above issue that the corresponding income to the claimed of aforesaid additional TDS was offered for taxation.

5. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside and confirm the order of the AO.”

4. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee is a Housing Finance Company registered under National Housing Bank. The Assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2021-2022 on

15/03/2022.

4.1. The case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice, dated

28/06/2022, under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was issued on 25/10/2022. The Assessee did not prefer appeal against the aforesaid intimation. It is the case of the Assessee that appeal was not filed against the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act since the regular assessment proceedings were pending. The regular assessment proceedings culminated into passing of the Assessment Order, dated 29/12/20