- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Cit v. Corporation Bank Ltd.
Factual and Procedural Background
The assessee, a banking company, had its assessment for the year ending 31-12-1968 completed on 4-10-1969. The assessment was later reopened under Section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to bring to tax a sum of Rs 54,485 credited to an “interest suspense account,” stated by the assessee to represent interest on loans whose recovery was considered doubtful.
The assessee had disclosed the sum of Rs 54,485 in its balance sheet as an unrealised amount of interest filed along with the return. The Income Tax Officer had accepted the return and excluded that amount in the original assessment order dated 4-10-1969. Subsequently, on reopening, the amount was taxed on the ground that interest accrued and due on loans was income for the relevant year and that the assessee had failed to disclose it earlier.
On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the reassessment. The Tribunal reversed the Commissioner, holding that a Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular dated 6-10-1952 governed the case and that reopening was not justified. On reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, the High Court answered in favour of the assessee, approving the Tribunal’s order. The matter reached the Court by way of appeals, which were dismissed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Section 147(a) was attracted to justify reopening of the completed assessment.
- Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest of Rs 54,485 credited directly to an interest suspense account was assessable to income tax.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State Bank of Travancore v. CIT (1986) 2 SCC 11, (1986) 158 ITR 102 | That in an identical situation, the question of reopening an assessment under Section 147(a) would not arise further. | The Court held the present matter to be covered by this judgment, supporting the conclusion that reopening under Section 147(a) was not justified on these facts. |
| CIT v. Corporation Bank Ltd. (1986) 157 ITR 509 (Kant) | Reference to the High Court decision where two questions were raised regarding Section 147(a) and taxability of interest in the interest suspense account. | The opinion notes the questions as framed before the High Court and records approval of the High Court/Tribunal’s conclusion on Section 147(a). |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that the High Court did not consider it necessary to examine the second question (taxability of the Rs 54,485) because the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular dated 6-10-1952 governed the matter; the Court likewise did not proceed further on that issue.
On the first question concerning Section 147(a), the Court emphasized the statutory requirement (as applied to the facts) that reopening depends on failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. On the record, there was no such failure: the assessee had disclosed the amount in its balance sheet as unrealised interest, and the statements filed with the original return contained full details of the account. Since the material facts were already disclosed, Section 147(a) was held inapplicable and not attracted.
The Court concurred with the High Court’s conclusion that the Tribunal was justified in holding that Section 147(a) could not be invoked. It also noted that the issue had arisen in a batch of cases involving more or less identical situations, and held that the question was covered by the Court’s judgment in State Bank of Travancore v. CIT.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED: The appeals failed and were dismissed; no order as to costs.
The direct effect is that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147(a) was not sustained on the facts as recorded (due to no failure of disclosure by the assessee), and the assessee succeeded. The opinion indicates that the taxability issue concerning the interest suspense account was not examined further in view of the CBDT Circular, and it notes that the reopening question was treated as covered by existing Supreme Court authority, without indicating any new precedent being set.
1. The assessee, a banking company, had the assessment for the year ending on 31-12-1968 completed on 4-10-1969. Subsequently, however, the assessment was reopened under Section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to bring to tax a sum of Rs 54,485 in respect of interest suspense account. It is, however, according to the assessee, the sums representing interest on loans, recovery of which was considered doubtful.
2. Incidentally be it noted that the assessee had disclosed this sum of Rs 54,485 in the balance sheet as unrealised amount of interest along with the return filed by it and the Income Tax Officer had accepted the return and as a matter of fact had excluded that amount in the assessment order completed on 4-10-1969.
3. The factual score depicts that in terms of a notice under Section 147(a) of the Act, the assessment was reopened and a sum of Rs 54,485 was subjected to tax on the ground that the interest accrued and due on the loans advanced by the Bank was the income of the Bank for the relevant assessment year and the assessee has failed to disclose this income in the return filed earlier.
4. In the appeal against the reassessment order, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the order of the Income Tax Officer and on further appeal, the Tribunal, however, reversed the view of the Commissioner and held that the instructions of the Central Board of Direct Taxes contained in the Circular dated 6-10-1952 would govern the case and the reopening was not justified and on a reference before the High Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, the High Court answered the reference in favour of the assessee upon recording its approval on to the order of the Tribunal.
5. The records depict that two questions were raised before the High Court (CIT v. Corporation Bank Ltd. (1986) 157 ITR 509 (Kant), ITR at p. 510):
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the provisions of Section 147(a) are not attracted?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the interest of Rs 54,485 taken directly to interest suspense account is not assessable to income tax?”
6. So far as the second question is concerned, the High Court recorded that the matter need not be gone into by reason of the Circular dated 6-10-1952, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Neither do we feel it necessary to go into the issue any further.
7. Turning attention to the first question as regards the provisions under Section 147(a), be it noted and as the facts depict, there is no failure on the part of the assessee in furnishing the particulars pertaining to the abovenoted sum as not recoverable for the relevant accounting year and the statements filed along with the original return disclosed the full details of the aforesaid account. There is, therefore, no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the material facts necessary for the assessment years for the respective years and as such Section 147(a) has no manner of application and is not attracted in the facts of the matter under consideration. The High Court on consideration of the facts came to the conclusion that the Tribunal was justified in coming to the said finding and we also record our concurrence therewith.
8. Incidentally this issue came for consideration before this Court in a batch of cases on more or less identical situations and this Court while dealing with this matter finally, recorded that the question as regards reopening of the assessment under Section 147(a) of the Act would not arise further. The question in the facts of the matter under consideration is thus covered by the judgment of this Court in State Bank of Travancore v. CIT (1986) 2 SCC 11, (1986) 158 ITR 102.
9. In that view of the matter, these appeals fail and are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Alert