IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2711/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2018-19]

Erstwhile United Bank of India Vs. The Dy. C.I.T Now Punjab National Bank Circle -19(1)

New Delhi Delhi PAN – AAACU 5624 P (Applicant) (Respondent)

Assessee By : Shri Vivek Gupta, CA Department By : Shri Rishipal Bedi, CIT- DR Date of Hearing : 05.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025

ORDER

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, A.M:-

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 29.03.2024 for A.Y 2018-19.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of the law, the order passed u/s 143(3) dated 26.08.2021 by the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, being passed in the name of non existent assessee, is void ab initio and therefore, the same needs to be quashed.

2. That without prejudice to ground no. 1 above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of the law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 37,08,18,000/- towards the amount of provision made for unrealised income from commission on Government transactions.

3. That without prejudice to ground no. 1 above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of the law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,19,51,594/- towards prior period expenses.

4. That without prejudice to ground no. 1 above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of the law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 12,964/- towards interest u/s 201(1A) or 206C(7) of the Act.

5. The appellant may be allowed to add, amend and forego any of the ground at the time of hearing.”

3. In addition to the above, the assessee has raised the following additional ground of appeal:

“That, on the facts & circumstances of the case and provisions of the law, order passed u/s 143(3) dated 26.08.2021 by the Ld. Assessing officer (AO) and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, being passed in the name of non-existence assessee, is void ab initio and therefore, the same needs to be quashed.”

4. We have gone through the additional ground. We are of the considered view that the ground goes to the root of the matter, therefore, we admit the same following the decision of NTPC 229 ITR 383(SC). As the additional ground has raised a legal ground, we decided to adjudicate the same first.

5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its original return of income on 30.10.2018 under the name of United Bank of India declaring a loss of Rs 1772,41,08,274/-. The assessee filed a revised return on 29.03.2019 declaring a loss of 5031,46,85,463/-. The return of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny assessment through CASS and accordingly statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer passed order u/s 143(3) r.w

144B on 26.08.2021 in the name of United bank of India assessing the loss at Rs 4993,18,18,621/-.

4. The entire quarrel of the assessee is that the assessment has been made on an entity which was not in existence on 26.08.2021 at all. Brief facts of the case is that the United Bank of India got amalgamated with Punjab National Bank on 01.04.2020 vide Gazette Notification no CG-DI-E- 04032020-216535 dated 04.03.2020. The assessee intimated the Addl.CIT, Special Range, New Delhi the fact of amalgamation of the United Bank of India with Punjab National Bank (PNB) vide mail dated 27.04.2020. This position was also mentioned in the written reply filed on 03.03.2021 with NFAC, Delhi as submissions were made on the letter head of PNB and the name of e-United Bank of India was mentioned in the subject itself.

5. Aggrieved, by the order of AO, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but without any success.

6.