Case Law Details
Appellant contended that section 43D of the Act itself recognises recognition of taxability of such interest and that when a specific provision in the nature of section 43D of the Act has been made, and entities like the assessee are excluded from the purview thereof, the assessee cannot indirectly claim benefit which would amount to a benefit similar to that under section 43D of the Act. In this regard, it may be noted that the benefit claimed by the assessee is not under any provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee being bound by the RBI Guidelines which are issued under the provisions of the RBI Act has not shown the interest on NPA as income. By virtue of the provisions of section 45Q of the RBI Act, the provisions of Chapter IIIB thereof have an overriding effect over other laws including the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of section 43D of the Act, since the provisions of section 45Q of the RBI Act have an overriding effect vis-à-vis income recognition principles in the Companies Act, the Assessing Officer is bound to follow the RBI Directions so far as income recognition is concerned. The contention that the assessee cannot indirectly claim the benefit which would amount to a benefit similar to that under section 43D of the Act, therefore, does not merit acceptance.
As can be seen from the assessment order, before the Assessing Officer the assessee had inter alia submitted that interest on NPA was not charged as mandatorily stipulated under Income Recognition and Asset Classification norms of the Reserve Bank of India. It has also been submitted that the CBDT circular bearing F.No.201/21/84-ITA-II dated 9.10.1984 issued under section 119 of the Act for all banking and non banking financial companies stating that if the interest has not been received for three years, the same will not be taxed as an income even on accrual basis even if interest has been credited to “Interest Suspense Account” would be applicable in its case. The Assessing Officer brushed aside the submission based upon the circular of 1984, on the ground that the same is applicable only to banking companies and not to cooperative banks, on a misconception of law that a cooperative bank isnot a banking company. In this regard it may be noted that the expression “banking company” has been defined under section 5(c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 to mean any company which transacts the business of banking in India. Part V of the Banking Regulation Act bears the heading “Application of the Act to Co-operative Societies”. Section 56 thereof provides that the provisions of the Act, as in force for the time being, shall apply to, or in relation to co-operative societies as they apply to, or in relation to banking companies subject to the modifications stated thereunder. Clause (a) of section 56, to the extent the same is relevant for the present purpose, provides that throughout the Act, unless the context otherwise requires, – (i) references to a “banking company” or “the company” or “such company” shall be construed as references to a co-operative bank. Section 2(i) of the RBI Act provides that “co-operative bank”, “co-operative credit society”, “director”, “primary agricultural credit society”, “primary co-operative society” and “primary credit society” shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in Part V of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Evidently therefore, the expression “banking company” would take within its sweep a co-operative bank. The Assessing Officer has thereafter entered into a discussion on the provisions of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, which provides for enforcement of security interest of banks and financial institutions and has observed that in the instant case, no material has been brought on record by the assessee to prove its efforts made in a bid to recover such debts which are classified as NPA and other categories. The Assessing Officer has also entered into a discussion as regards the quality of management, etc., without even examining as to whether or not there was any probability of interest being received on the NPAs. The Commissioner (Appeals) has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Limited (supra) and held that there is no merit in the contention of the assessee that under commercial accounting, interest on NPAs cannot be charged. On the question of applicability of the CBDT Circular dated 9.10.1984, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the same would not be applicable for the reason that the provisions of section 43D of the Act are clear and cannot be overridden through delegated legislation viz. circulars and notifications. The Commissioner (Appeals) was further of the opinion that the statutory provisions were brought on the Act much later than the said circular (which was issued in 1984) and therefore the said circular would not have any effect or binding force upon the Assessing Officer. The view adopted by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) is clearly contrary to the view expressed by this court hereinabove. The Tribunal was therefore, wholly justified in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the assessment order.
Date : 05/08/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
