TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;ble CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 25,83,045/- made by the A.O, on account of interest on Non Performing Assets u/s.43D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provisions of section 43D are applicable to Financial Institutions and a Scheduled Bank. Thus, the assessee being a non scheduled bank could not take the benefit of section 43D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in appreciating the provisions of section 145 of the I.T. Act, 1961, in its correct perspective. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred while delivering the judgment has allowed the appeal of the assessee bank by placing reliance on its own decision in the ACIT, Circle -3f Nanded Vs. Osmanabad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. in ITA No. 795/PN/2011 vide order dated 31/08/2012. However, the above decision has not been accepted by the Department and an appeal u/s. 260A has been filed by the CIT, Aurangabad with the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest would not form part of taxable income of the banking company in the fourth year. The Assessing Officer noted that the said advances of the assessee were inclusive of substandard, doubtful loans, which meant that the interest had not remained unrecoverable for the last three consecutive previous years, hence, the contention of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer held the assessee to have contravened the provisions of section 43D of the Act and the interest on such sticky loans was held to be income of the assessee for the year under consideration. 6. The CIT(A), in turn relying on the ratio laid down by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT Vs. Osmanabad Janta Sah. Bank Ltd., in ITA No.795/PN/2011, relating to assessment year 2007-08, order dated 31.08.2012, held that the income from NPAs should not be assessed on mercantile basis. Despite the assessee maintaining mercantile system of accounting, it also held that the provisions of section 43D of the Act were applicable only to the extent the interest was actually received. The assessee for the year under consideration had directly taken the interest receivable on NPAs to interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me is credited by the assessee in the Profit and Loss account or in the year of actual receipt, whichever is earlier. Since assessee is not an entity covered within the scope of section 43D of the Act, the present controversy cannot be adjudicated in the light of section 43D of the Act, and it is liable to be decided on general principles as to whether the impugned income has accrued to the assessee during the year under consideration. 9. In this connection, we find that the Visakhapatnam Bench of the Tribunal in the case of The Durga Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. (supra) has considered an identical controversy. The assessee before the Visakhapatnam Bench was a Co-operative Bank operating under a license issued by RBI but was not a 'scheduled bank' so as to fall within the scope of section 43D of the Act. The issue related to taxability of interest income relating to NPAs, which as per the Revenue was liable to be taxed on accrual basis in line with mercantile system of accounting adopted by the assessee therein. The assessee, on the other hand, contended that having regard to the guidelines issued by RBI regarding accounting of interest on NPAs, no interest income accrued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;ble High Court also considered accounting standard AS-9 on Revenue recognition and also extracted following relevant portion from the said accounting standard: 9. Effect of uncertainties on Revenue Recognition 9.1 Recognition of revenue requires that revenue is a measurable and that at the time of sale or the rendering of the service, it would not be unreasonable to expect ultimate collection. 9.2 Where the ability to assess the ultimate collection with reasonable certainty is lacking at the time of raising any claim, e.g., for escalation of price, export incentives, interest etc., revenue recognition is postponed to the extent of uncertainty involved. In such cases, it may be appropriate to recognize revenue only when it is reasonably certain that the ultimate collection will be made. Where there is no uncertainty as to ultimate collection, revenue is recognized at the time of sale or rendering of service even though payments are made by installments. 9.3 When the uncertainty relating to collectability arises subsequent to the time of sale or the rendering of the service, it is more appropriate to make a separate provision to reflect the uncertainty rather than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it and loss account, which was claimed as deduction in terms of Section 36(1) (vii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer did not allow the deduction claimed as aforesaid on the ground that the provision of NPA was not in the nature of expenditure or loss but more in the nature of a reserve, and thus not deductible under section 36(i)(vii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however, did not bring to tax ₹ 20,34,605/- as income (being income accrued under the mercantile system of accounting). The dispute before the Apex Court centered around deductibility of provision for NPA. After analyzing the provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act, their Lordships of the Apex Court observed that in so far as the permissible deductions or exclusions under the Act are concerned, the same are admissible only if such deductions/exclusions satisfy the relevant conditions stipulated therefore under the Act. To that extent, it was observed that the Prudential Norms do not override the provisions of the Act. However, the Apex Court made a distinction with regard to Income Recognition and held that income had to be recognized in terms of the Prudential Norms, even though the same deviated from m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch change would result in understatement of profits. However, here is the case where the AO has to follow the Reserve Bank of India Directions 1998 in view of Section 45Q of the Reserve Bank of India Act. Hence, as far as Income Recognition is concerned, Section 145 of the IT Act has no role to play in the present dispute . 10. Turning to the facts of the case before us, the assessee herein is a cooperative bank and it is not in dispute that it is also governed by the Reserve Bank of India. Hence the directions with regard to the prudential norms issued by the Reserve Bank of India are equally applicable to the assessee as it is applicable to the companies registered under the Companies Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd (Supra), that the provision of 45Q of Reserve Bank of India Act has an overriding effect vis- -vis income recognition principle under the Companies Act. Hence Sec.45 Q of the RBI Act shall have overriding effect over the income recognition principle followed by cooperative banks also. Hence the Assessing Officer has to follow the Reserve Bank of India directions 1998, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s provided by RBI and therefore it held the interest income on NPAs is liable to be taxed on accrual basis and not in terms of RBI's guidelines. But the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. (supra) has taken a view that Southern Technologies Ltd. (supra) case did not apply to the Income Recognition Norms prescribed by RBI. Ostensibly, there is divergence of opinion between the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Madras High Court as noted by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in its order. 12. In so far as, present case is concerned there is no judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court. We are faced with two contrary judgments of the non-jurisdictional High Court. In such a situation, we are inclined to prefer a view which is favourable of the assessee following the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC). 13. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, we are inclined to follow the decision of our co-ordinate Bench in the case of The Durga Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. (supra) and accordingly the order of the CIT(A) is liable to the affirmed. We hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
