TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 904
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppressed, but it is a income though book entry. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Co-operative Bank registered under the provisions of section 14 of Hyderabad Co-operative Society Act, XVI, 1952 under registration No.21250 dated 09.03.1956. The bank derived income from banking business and has maintained books of accounts following mercantile system of accounting. The assessee has filed return for the year under consideration on 29.10.2007 declaring income of Rs.10,95,809/-. The Assessing Officer held that interest on sticky advances of Rs.34,58,116/- should be added to the total income. However, while computing the total income, net profit as per profit and loss account was typed wrongly at Rs.5,39,193/- and figure of total income of Rs.21,60,230/- was also typed wrongly. The Assessing Officer rectified the order after passing order u/s.154 on 29.12.2010 after taking correct figures. Matter was carried before the first appellate authority, who after considering the submissions raised on behalf of the assessee, allowed relief to the assessee. Same has been opposed before us. Revenue in its Ground has stated that the CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....interest shall be chargeable to tax in the previous year in which it is credited. The words "credited" and "actually received" has been highlighted hereinabove while reproducing the section in question. The other deviation from the said accepted principle of accountancy is that an income by way of interest shall be chargeable to tax in the previous year in which it is actually received. The Act says that the incidence of 'credit' or "actually received", whichever is earlier is to be taken into account for the purpose of chargeability of income by way of interest. Simultaneously, it is noteworthy that this section is an overriding section because the opening word is "notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other provisions of this Act". Therefore, in spite of anything contained in the Act, the provisions of this section shall override those provisions. Once the Statute has categorically made a law in respect of public financial institutions that interest is chargeable to tax either in the year in which credited or actually received, whichever is earlier, then it is compulsory to abide by the said Rule. According to us, no scope is left with the Revenue Authorities ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore reported in 110 ITR 336 (Ker.), wherein it was held that the assessee, a banking company, did not credit in its account the interest that had accrued on "sticky advances" because the assessee felt that the interest could not to be realised. It credited the interest to a separate account known as "interest suspense account". On reference, the Hon'ble Court has held that there was an accrual of income liable to income- tax and the assessee was not justified in not crediting the interest income on such "stick advances" it its accounts. However, later on at the Hon'ble Apex Court while pronouncing the judgment of the said State Bank of Travancore vs. CIT reported in (1986)158 ITR 102(SC), there were Hon'ble three Judges presiding the Court, out of which Hon'ble two Judges were in the opinion that the interest on "sticky advances" was rightly treated as income which had accrued to the appellant. There was a descending note by one of the Hon'ble Judge and commented that whether an income on receipt basis or on accrual basis, it is the real income and not any hypothetical income which may have theoretically accrued, i.e. subject to tax under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplied in its letter and spirit. It is pertinent to mention that later on, in the case of CIT vs. Bank of America S.A. 262 ITR 504 (Bom) the question of interest on "sticky loans" was decided in favour of the assessee and held that the question is to be answered in favour of the assessee following the decision of UCO Bank reported at 237 ITR 889(SC) :: 240 ITR 355 (SC). Likewise, in an another case of CIT vs. State Bank of India 262 ITR 662 (Bom.) again it was held that the amount credited to the interest suspense account was not taxable following the decision pronounced in the case of UCO Bank (supra). (V) Judgement in favour of Revenue : From the side of the Revenue an order of the Tribunal has been vehemently relied upon and this is the basic reason of the elaborate discussion made hereinabove so as to unfold the controversy. In the said decision of the Tribunal, viz. Jt.CIT v/s. India Equipment leasing Ltd. (2008)111 ITD 37 (Chennai), the Respected Co-ordinate Bench has expressed that quote " Prior to insertion of section 43D with effect from 1-4-1991, recognition of income was on the basis of circular of 9-101984. It said that for first three years the income may be take....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervation of the Respected Tribunal was that if the contention of the assessee was to be accepted, then it would amount to insertion of "NBFC" in section 43-D of the I.T.Act. As against that, as far as the assessee is concerned, it is an accepted fact that the assessee is a cooperative bank and not a non-banking financial company and this noteworthy distinction has already been appreciated by us in one of the paragraphs above. There is one more decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court which is yet to be mentioned while discussing the arguments raised from the side of the Revenue. A decision in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT 320 ITR 577 (SC) has been cited but the fundamental difference is that the issue before the Hon'ble Court was in respect of provision for NPA and debited to P&L Account by a NBFC. The said provision was undisputedly made by the said NBFC as per the prudential norms made by the Reserve Bank. Therefore we want to make it clear that the question for consideration before the Hon'ble Court was that if a provision for doubtful debt is made then what will be the legal position of the applicability of Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) of the I.T. Act. Fo....