IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM &

MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No.3486/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2020-21)

United Overseas Bank Limited., ACIT (International Tax) Circle-

Unit 31 and 37, 3^rd Floor, 4(3)(1), Maker Maxity, Bandra Kurla Air India Building, Nariman Point, Vs.

Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400021.

Mumbai-400051.

PAN: AABCU0296L Appellant) : Respondent Appellant /Assessee by : Shri Madhur Agarwal, AR Revenue / Respondent by : Shri Krishna Kumar- Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.04.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. International Tax Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 31.07.2023 for AY

2020-21. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:

“On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO General Ground

1. erred in assessing the Appellant's income at Rs. 1,24,84,46,090 instead of the returned income of Rs. 1,24,74,42,870, Validity of proceedings concluded in absence of a valid notice under section

143(2) of the Act

2. erred in completing the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act disregarding the principles of natural justice when notice under section 143(2) of the Act is issued by one authority and assessment was completed by another authority:

3. erred in completing the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act was not issued to the Appellant (being a foreign company) by the learned AO but by the National Faceless Assessment Centre which does not have valid jurisdiction over the Appellant and therefore, the entire proceedings are bad in law and ought to be quashed:

4. erred in completing the assessment without following the procedure prescribed under section 1448(8) of the Act for transfer of case from the National Faceless Assessment Centre to the jurisdictional officer which could only have been done by the Principal Chief Commissioner (National Faceless Assessment Centre)/ Principal Director General (National Faceless Assessment Centre), if he considered it necessary and after obtaining prior approval of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act dated 31 July 2023 is barred by limitation:

5. erred in not passing the final assessment order within the time limit prescribed under section 153 of the Act which is the outer time limit for passing the final assessment order and hence, the final assessment order dated 31 July 2023 which is passed after 30 September 2022 (being the time limit as per the provisions of Section 153 of the Act) is time barred and liable to be quashed. Arguments on merits

6. erred in concluding that the head office expenses incurred by the head office of the Appellant are not executive and general administration expenses under section 44C of the Act, 7. erred in concluding that the head office expenses incurred by the head office of the Appellant incurred outside India and allocated to the Indian Branch is a notional expenditure:

8. erred in concluding that the Appellant has not furnished evidence that the said HO expenditure is being utilized in India;

9. erred in concluding that the no real expenditure has been utilized for the purpose of business in India by Appellant, 10. erred in concluding that in order to claim the deduction of the head office expenditure under section 44C of the Act, the expenditure needs to be allowable under section 37 of the Act;

Initiation of penal proceedings under section 270A of the Act:

11. Erred in initiating penal proceedings under section 270A of the Act,”

2. The assessee is a banking company incorporated in Singapore and caries on banking activities in India through its Branch in India. The Indian branches of t