| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण (cid:12)ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT &

SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2956/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/s. Union Bank of India Deputy Commissioner of Finance & Accounts Vs Income Tax, Circle – (LTU) 2, Union Bank Bhavan Mumbai

239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 [PAN: AAACU0564G]

अपीलाथ(cid:22)/ (Appellant) (cid:23)(cid:24) यथ(cid:22)/ (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri C. Naresh, A/R Revenue by : Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 20/06/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. Pr. CIT – 3, Mumbai [hereinafter “the ld. Pr. CIT”] dt.

30/03/2024 pertaining to AY 2019-20.

2. The grievance of the assessee reads as under:-

“1. The Ld. PCIT erred in framing in the hands of Appellant bank, order u/s 263 dated 30.03.2024 against two separate assessment orders of AO viz order u/s 143(3) dated 29.09.2021 passed on the predecessor Andhra bank and order u/s 143(3) rws 144B dated 23.09.2021 passed on appellant bank, in their respective assessment of Income, contrary to provisions of sec 170 (2) of the Act.

2. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. PCIT erred in revising the order dated 23.09.2021 on appellant bank, wherein the AO passed the order after considering material and evidences submitted during the course of assessment in respect of-

(a) Disallowance u/s 14A (b) Disallowance of bad debts written off (c) Disallowance of amounts paid for not following the internal guidelines of regulator.

(d) Disallowance of interest on perpetual bonds (e) Taxing of the recovery in respect of bad debts written off.

3. Without prejudice the Id. PCIT erred in revising the order u/s 143(3) dated 29.09.2021 passed on predecessor bank wherein the AO passed the order after considering material and evidences submitted during the course of assessment in respect of-

(a) Depreciation on investments (b) Provision for wage arrears Without prejudice to the above even on merits In the order u/s 143(3) dated 23.09.2021 on appellant in respect of its separate assessable Income that-

4. The Ld. PCIT erred in directing the AO to add back the provisions which are reduced from the assets ignoring the binding decision of hon'ble ITAT in appellant's own case where it was held that the provisions of section 115JB are not applicable to appellant.

4.1. Without prejudice to above, the PCIT failed to note that the provisions are reduced from advances these amounts are written off as held by Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Vijaya Bank (323 ITR 166) and hence cannot be added back in computing book profits.

5. The Ld. PCIT erred in directing the AO to make further disallowance u/s 14A under normal computation and 115JB and to tax recovery in respect of bad debts written off which was not allowed as deduction in computing normal income ignoring the binding decision of Hon'ble ITAT in appellants own case.

6. The Ld. PCIT erred in directing the AO to disallow the amount of depreciation investments, broken period interest, amortization on securities provided as per RBI guidelines ignoring the binding Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS).

7. The Ld. PCIT erred in directing the AO to disallow the bad debts written off by reducing the advances in the Balance sheet ignoring the binding decision of Apex Court in case of Vijaya Bank (323 ITR 166).

8. The Ld. PCIT erred in directing the AO to disallow interest paid on perpetual bonds, amounts paid for not following the guidelines of regulators and to tax the notional interest on bad and doubtful debts under Rule 6EA contrary to judicial precedents.

In the order u/s 143(3) dated 29.09.2021 framed on the Andhra Bank (viz., predecessor) in respect of its separate income that-

9. The Ld. PCIT erred in directing the AO to d