BANK OF BARODA,BANK OF BARODA V. DCIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

CO 259/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by the Revenue against the decision of the CIT(A) which quashed the reopening of the assessment for the Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The Revenue contended that the reopening was justified based on a revenue audit objection regarding the treatment of bad debts written off in the computation of book profits under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. The assessee, M/s. Bank of Baroda, argued that the reopening was invalid as it was based on existing materials and did not constitute a failure to disclose material facts. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the audit objection did not provide new tangible material for reopening the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 835778 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 23-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, CIT Vs. P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd., Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIMAL KUMAR MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: C. NARESH
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Question of law; Bad and doubtful debts; Depreciation; Period of limitation; Audit objection; Assessment record; Reason to believe; Revision of order; Tangible material
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 142(1); 154; 263; 139; 14A; 115JB

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos.4913 & 4869/Mum/2025 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) DCIT-2(1)(1), Room No.561, 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 020 Vs. M/s. Bank of Baroda, 2nd Floor, Baroda Corporate Centre, C 26, G Block, 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, Baroda Corporate Centre, Corporate Accounts & Taxation Department. 2nd Floor, C-26, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Room No.561, 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400 020 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. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.4913 & 4869/Mum/2025 CO Nos.259 & 258/M/2025 M/s. Bank of Baroda & Ors. 2 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.4913 & 4869/Mum/2025 CO Nos.259 & 258/M/2025 M/s. Bank of Baroda & Ors. 3 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, reduction of tax credit of Dubai branch, applying incorrect rate of tax on income under MAT and not quantifying the MAT tax credit to be carried forward. Your appellant craves leave to add, to amend and/ or vary the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 4. Brief facts are that the assessee bank had filed its return of income for the year under consideration dated 27.11.2015 declaring total income at Rs.4441,92,59,570/- under the normal provisions and Rs.3398,43,53,000/- under book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 30.03.2017 determining the total income at Rs.7229,71,91,446/- under the normal provisions and book profit u/s 115JB of the Act at Rs.5584,71,35,821/- after making certain additions/disallowances. 5. The assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority challenging the assessment order and the Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal vide order dated 12.12.2017. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.4913 & 4869/Mum/2025 CO Nos.259 & 258/M/2025 M/s. Bank of Baroda & Ors. 4 The Learned Assessing Officer (“the Ld. AO” for short) passed the order giving effect of Ld. CIT(A) dated 28.03.2018 where the total income was determined at Rs.5164,43,19,448/- under the normal provisions and book profit u/s 115JB of the Act at Rs.5584,71,35,821/-. Subsequently, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (“Ld. PCIT” for short) invoked the revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act and vide order dated 26.03.2019 passed u/s 263 of the Act directed the Ld. AO to add back the provisions and contingencies amounting to Rs.6516,66,53,000/- debited to the P&L account while computing the book profits. Further, the order giving effect of Ld. PCIT was passed on 26.03.2019 determining total income at Rs.5164,43,19,448/- under the normal provisions and book profit at Rs.9032,65,84,821/- was recomputed after making additions amounting to Rs.6516,66,53,000/-. The Ld. PCIT also passed order u/s 263 of the Act dated 11.03.2020 setting aside the order dated 28.03.2018 giving effect to the Ld. CIT(A)’s order dated 12.12.2017 passed by the Ld. AO giving certain directions to compute the correct income and the order giving effect was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act dated 29.09.2021 determining the total income at Rs.5536,17,83,210/- under the normal provisions and book profit u/s 115JB of the Act at Rs.9032,65,84,821/-. It is also observed that order u/s 154 of the Act was passed on 18.11.2021 determining the total income at Rs.5536,17,83,210/- and book profits u/s 115JB of the Act at Rs.9032,65,84,821/- where the assessee was granted credit of taxes already paid which was not granted to the assessee earlier. 6. Subsequently, the assessee’s case was reopened vide notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021. The reasons for reopening were furnished to the assessee on 05.07.2021. In Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.4913 & 4869/Mum/2025 CO Nos.259 & 258/M/2025 M/s. Bank of Baroda & Ors. 5 response to the said notice, the assessee filed its return of income dated 16.09.2021 which according to the Ld. AO was not reflecting in the e-filing portal and the assessee vide letter dated 29.03.2022 furnished copy of the return filed on 16.09.2021 which was not e-verified by it and subsequently e-verified on 28.03.2022 with a request to condone the delay in verification of return. Since the said return was not reflecting in the e-filing portal, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not generated from the ITBA system. The Ld. AO provided the reasons for reopening again vide letter dated 26.10.2021 to the assessee and notices u/s 142(1) of the Act was also issued on 05.02.2022 seeking the assessee to file its objection, if any, in respect of reopening of the assessment along with other details. The assessee filed its objection along with other details vide letter dated 17.02.2022. The Ld. AO disposed of the assessee’s objection for reopening of the assessment vide a speaking order dated 15.03.2022. The Ld. AO passed the impugned assessment order dated 31.03.2022 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act determining the total income at Rs.6603,42,33,310/- under the normal provisions and Rs.1838,98,91,473/- as book profit u/s 115JB of the Act after making an addition of Rs.907,04,11,000/- towards bad debts written off. 7. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority who vide order dated 30.01.2025 allowed the appeal filed by the assessee challenging the validity of the reopening of the assessment on the ground that there was no new tangible material available with the Ld. AO for reopening the assessment and the same was only on the basis of the return of income, tax audit report or annual report which were already on record and hence there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, by placing the reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.4913 & 4869/Mum/2025 CO Nos.259 & 258/M/2025 M/s. Bank of Baroda & Ors. 6 Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 140 taxmann.com 345. 8. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the abovementioned grounds and the assessee has also raised cross objection on the ground that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue on the merits of the case. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The issue that requires adjudication in the present appeal is whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in allowing the appeal of the assessee by holding the re-assessment to be invalid. From the factual background of the case, it is evident that during the scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act the Ld. AO made the following additions/disallowances vide assessment order dated 30.03.2017: Sl No Particulars of addition/disallowance Under Normal Income Under MAT (i.e. Book Profit) 1 Disallowance u/s.14A 1288744800 1288744800 2 Amortization of lease premium 38854000 3 Income from foreign branches 21174615000 11451440634 4 Broken Period interest 1386100000 0 5 Provision for wage revision 6250000000 5400600000 6 Provision for income tax / wealth tax / differed tax 0 21366793000 Total 30138313800 39507578434 10. Subsequent to the scrutiny assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was disposed of and the order giving effect of the Ld. CIT(A) was also passed. Further, there was also revisionary proceeding u/s 263 of the Act, pursuant to which the order giving effect of the Ld. PCIT was also passed and the assessee’s total Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.4913 & 4869/Mum/2025 CO Nos.259 & 258/M/2025 M/s. Bank of Baroda & Ors. 7 income under normal provisions and book profit were recomputed. It is observed that the bad debts written off amounting to Rs.907,04,11,000/- was allowed by the department while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act, which according to the Revenue was inadvertently allowed in assessee’s case. The assessee’s case was reopened on this count that the bad debts written off which was otherwise not allowable as per Explanation-1 of section 115JB of the Act was allowed by the department, resulting in escapement of income. It is trite to cite the relevant extract of the reasons for reopening herein under for ease of reference: “In this case, the assessee filed the return of income for the A.Y.2015-16 on 2015 declaring total income at Rs.4441,92,59,570/- under normal provision and Rs.3398,43,53,000/- u/s. 115JB of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, 1961 on 30-03-2017 assessing total income at Rs.7229,71,91,446/- under normal provisions and book profit u/s.115JB of the Act of Rs.5584,71,35,821/- after making following additions / disallowances. s. N. Particulars of addition / disallowance Under Normal Income Under MAT (i.e., Book Profit) 1 Disallowance u/s.14A 1288744800 1288744800 2 Amortization of lease premium 38854000 0 3 Income from foreign branches 21174615000 11451440634 4 Broken Period interest p 1386100000 0 5 Provision for wage revision 6250000000 5400600000 6 Provision for income tax / wealth tax / differed tax 0 21366793000 Total 30138313800 39507578434 2. Against the aforesaid additions / disallowance the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), which was disposed off vide order No.CIT(A)-4/IT-10/DCIT-2(1)(1)/2017-18 dated 12-12-2017. The order giving effect of the CIT(A) dated 12-12-2017 was passed on 28-03- 2018 and total income under normal provision was computed at Rs.5164,43,19,448/- and book profit u/s.115JB of the Act at Rs.5584,71,35,821/-. Thereafter, the Pr.CIT vide his order u/s.263 of the Act dated 26-03-2019 directed the AO to add back the provisions and contingencies amounting to Rs.6516,66,53,000/- debited to the profit and loss account while computing the book profit as per the Act. The order giving effect of the PCIT-2, Mumbai dated 26-03-2019 was passed on 26-03-2019 determining the total income at Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.4913 & 4869/Mum/2025 CO Nos.259 & 258/M/2025 M/s. Bank of Baroda & Ors. 8 Rs.5164,43,19,448/- under normal provision and book profit of Rs.9032,65,84,821/- was recomputed by making addition of Rs.6516,66,53,000/-. 3. As enumerated above, in the order passed 26-03-2019 Book Profit of Rs.9032,65,84,821/- was computed after making an addition of Rs.6516,66,53,000/- under the various heads provisions & contingencies and an amount of Rs.907,04,11,000/- was deducted while computing the book profit. In this regard it is worth to mention here that the bad debts written off is not allowable under the explanation 1 of the section 115JB of the IT Act, whereas department has allowed the deduction of provision for bad debts of Rs.907,04,11,000/-. However, as per provision cited above this deduction is not allowable while computing the book profit, which was allowed inadvertently. Since the assessee has been wrongly allowed deduction on account of bad debts of Rs.907,04,11,000/- while computing the book profit, which has resulted in short computation of Book Profit to the extent of Rs.907,04,11,000/-. Therefore, there is an escapement of income in computing the book profit. 4. Taking into consideration of the above and the data in the Return of Income, the data from the assessment records and having duly applied my mind to it, I am of the considered view that income of Rs.907.04.11,000/- consisting of bad debts written off has escaped assessment for A.Y.2015-16 due to reasons attributable to the assessee for failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that year. 5. On the basis of material available on record and on perusal and careful consideration of the same, I have prima facie reason to believe that income chargeable to tax to the tune of Rs.907,04,11,000/- or any other income chargeable to tax, which comes to my notice subsequently in the course of proceedings for re-assessment, has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the income tax Act, 1961. The assessee has therefore, failed to disclose true and complete particulars of income for the year under consideration. Accordingly, the case is proposed to be reopened u/s. 147 of the Act for A.Y. 2015-16. 6. In this case more than four years have lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration. Hence, necessary sanction to issue notice u/s. 148 is being obtained separately as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act.” 11. From the abovementioned reasons, the assessee’s case was reopened vide notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021, issued and served upon the assessee, which was beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 12. The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) for the Revenue contended that while passing the order giving effect of Ld. PCIT, the bad debts written off was allowed as Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.4913 & 4869/Mum/2025 CO Nos.259 & 258/M/2025 M/s. Bank of Baroda & Ors. 9 deduction while computing book profit which is otherwise not allowable under the Explanation (1) of section 115JB of the Act thereby resulting in the escapement of income while computing the book profits. The Ld. DR contended that based on the Revenue audit report the discrepancy in computation of book profit u/s 115JB of the Act on account of bad debts was brought to the knowledge and on the said tangible material the Ld. AO reopened the assessee’s case vide notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Ld. DR further argued that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering that the audit objection is a tangible material for reopening, which according to the Ld. DR was of high evidentiary value. The Ld. DR contended that these are not mere “change of opinion” as alleged by the assessee, where there was a reason to believe based on the audit objection that income has escaped assessment. The Ld. DR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC) wherein it was held that the audit party pointing out factual error or omission in the assessment is permissible for reopening a case which was in accordance with section 147(b) of the Act. 13. The contention of the Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) for the assessee was that there was no new tangible material available with the Ld. AO for reopening the assessee’s case which is also evident from the reasons recorded for reopening. The Ld. AR further argued that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment which is a condition precedent for reopening the assessment. The Ld. AR further stated that the Revenue has failed to establish as to what was the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts, as the re-assessment notice was issued after expiry of four years from the Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.4913 & 4869/Mum/2025 CO Nos.259 & 258/M/2025 M/s. Bank of Baroda & Ors. 10 end of the relevant year which is a mandate as per proviso to section 147 of the Act. The Ld. AR relied on a catena of decisions in support of his contention and relied extensively on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 14. On the above factual matrix of the case, the undisputed fact is that the assessee’s case was reopened based on the materials which were already available on record and there was no new tangible material that was brought to the knowledge of the Ld. AO as there has been a series of proceedings in the assessee’s case for the year under consideration. It is necessary to cite the relevant provision herein under for ease of reference: “147. If any income chargeable to tax, in the case of an assessee, has escaped assessment for any assessment year, the Assessing Officer may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year. Explanation.—For the purposes of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, irrespective of the fact that the provisions of section 148A have not been complied with. Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year:” 15. On a bare reading of the said provision, it is evident that the proviso to section 147 of the Act categorically states that where there has already been a scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act or re-assessment u/s 147 of the Act has been completed for the relevant assessment year, the Ld. AO shall not invoke the said provision after expiry of four years Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.4913 & 4869/Mum/2025 CO Nos.259 & 258/M/2025 M/s. Bank of Baroda & Ors. 11 from the end of the relevant assessment year unless there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment resulting in escapement of income chargeable to tax. Further, in the present case, it is observed that the Ld. PCIT has given a specific direction that the bad debt written off and the withdrawal from the staff welfare provision for staff welfare disbursement during the year should be reduced while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act, which clearly establishes the fact that the Ld. PCIT has given a clear finding to that extent which was complied by the Ld. AO in the order giving effect. In such circumstances, we do not find any failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing the same where the Revenue should not ideally have taken this recourse, if it was aggrieved by the order of the Ld. PCIT. The legislature in its wisdom has consciously restricted the reopening of the assessment beyond the period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year only to the extent of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. It is a settled proposition of law by various decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court which has time and again reiterated that for reopening an assessment after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the Revenue will have to discharge its onus as to the failure on the part of the assessee, basis which income has escaped assessment. Neither the reasons for reopening nor the assessment order specifies such kind of a failure which is attributable to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra) which has reiterated this proposition and has held the re-assessment to be invalid. Per contra, the Ld. DR extensively relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.4913 & 4869/Mum/2025 CO Nos.259 & 258/M/2025 M/s. Bank of Baroda & Ors. 12 case of P.V.S. Beedies (P) Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held that the information given by the internal audit party tantamounts to tangible material basis which re-assessment is held to be valid. It is pertinent to note that in the said decision the Ld. AO was not aware of the fact that the recognition granted to the assessee trust had expired, which fact was brought to the knowledge of the Ld. AO by the audit party. It was also specified that a Larger Bench was constituted to consider the issue whether reopening is permissible after the audit report opines on a question of law. In a subsequent decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1979] 2 Taxman 197 (SC)/[1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC)/[1979] 12 CTR 190 (SC)[31-08- 1979] held that the opinion on law rendered on the basis of audit report cannot be the basis for re-assessment rather it has to be the Ld. AO who should apply his mind not merely on the information by external agency but by evaluation of law, else it could lead to grave consequence of the external agencies taking the power of re-assessment rather than the Ld. AO. It further held that the note put up by the internal audit party cannot be termed to be “information” within the meaning of section 147(b) of the Act per se where the provision emphasizes that the Ld. AO should first have information in his possession and in consequence of which he must have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee after duly considering various decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts and also the earlier decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself. This view was also reiterated in the subsequent decisions where the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent decision in the case of Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. (2026) 182 taxmann.com 367 (SC) upheld the finding of the Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.4913 & 4869/Mum/2025 CO Nos.259 & 258/M/2025 M/s. Bank of Baroda & Ors. 13 Hon’ble Gujarat High Court that reopening was merely on the basis of audit party opinion and not on the basis of the Ld. AO’s own conviction lacking in subjective satisfaction while issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. It further held that reopening on the basis of the same materials tantamounts to change of opinion which is impermissible in law. On the above observation, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore deem it fit to dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue and hereby quash the impugned notice as well as the impugned order. As we have already quashed the impugned assessment order, the grounds raised by the assessee in its cross objection challenging the merits of the case are also dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed. 16. The finding given in this appeal and cross objection i.e. ITA No.4913/M/2025 & CO No.259/M/2025 will apply mutatis mutandis to other appeal and cross objection i.e. ITA No.4869/M/2025 & CO No.258/M/2025 as well and hence the same are also hereby dismissed. 17. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.02.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 12.02.2026 *Kishore, Sr. PS Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.4913 & 4869/Mum/2025 CO Nos.259 & 258/M/2025 M/s. Bank of Baroda & Ors. 14 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "