KARNATAKA BANK LTD vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

WRIT PETITION NO.40511 OF 2015

Between:

Karnataka Bank Ltd.,

Head Office,

Near Mahaveera Circle,

Pumpwell, Kankanady

Mangaluru-575002.

Represented herein by its,

Deputy General Manager,

Mr.Muralidhar Krishna Rao.

…Petitioner

(By Shri.K.P.Kumar, Sr.Counsel, for Shri.Sandeep Huilgoul and Shri.T.Suryanarayana, Advocates)

And:

The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax,

Circle 2(1), Mangaluru,

C.R.Building, N.G.Road,

Attavara, Mangaluru-575 001.

The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax,

Circle, 2(1), Mangaluru,

IInd Floor, C.R.Building-Annexe,

Attavara, Mangaluru-575001.

The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax,

C.R.Building, N.G.Road,

Attavara, Mangaluru-575 001.

…Respondents

(By Shri.Jeevan Neeralgi, Advocate) ---

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that the impugned proceedings initiated by the R-1 under section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act 1961 vide Annexure-D are barred by limitation and opposed to the said provisions and therefore, without jurisdiction and etc.,

This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:-

O R D E R

Heard the learned Senior Advocate Shri K P Kumar appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the revenue Shri K V Aravind.

The petitioner’s regular assessments was concluded by assessment order dated 09.03.2011 for the year 2009-10. Subsequently, the first respondent is said to have issued notice under Section 148 proposing to reassess the petitioner for the assessment year concerned on the

ground that certain income was found to be escaped income. The reasons assigned were not indicated as the basis for reopening of the assessment. It was learnt that the income occurring from investments made by the petitioner bank other than what were not made by the Statutory Liquidity Ratio (‘SLR’ for brevity) was held not related to the business of banking, and that, the said income ought to have been taxed under the head ‘income from other sources’ as against business income. Therefore, the first respondent sought to disallow an interest expense of a large sum of money. The above reassessment proceedings having been initiated on a mere change of opinion, according to the learned Senior Advocate, was not permissible under Section 147 of the Act. All the details regarding investment portfolio of the petitioner for the year in question, including the annual report of the petitioner for the year ended 31.03.2010, necessary for one to have to come to any conclusion as regards non – SLR securities

had been furnished to the first respondent at the time of the original assessment. This had been examined in detail and having applied his mind to the said question, had formed an opinion that no disallowance was necessary on that account. There was no new material that has come to the knowledge of the first respondent after the original assessment. Therefore the changed opinion having been under review of assessment was wholly impermissible. It is in this background that the petition is filed.

However, even during pendency of this petition the Ministry of finance, Government of India, Directorate of Income Tax had issued a circular bearing No.18/2015 which reads as follows:

“ It has been brought to the notice of the Board that in the case of Banks, field officers are taking a view that, “expenses relatable to investment in non-SLR securities need to be disallowed u/s 57(i) of the Act as interest on

non-SLR securities is income from other sources.”

Clause (id) of sub-section (1) of Section 56 of the Act provides that income by way of interest on securities shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Income from Other Sources”, if, the income is not chargeable to income-tax under the head “Profits and Gains of Business and Profession”.

The matter has been examined in light of the judicial decisions on this issue. In the case of CIT vs. Nawanshahar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., (2007) 160TAXMAN 48(SC), the Apex Court held that the investments made by a banking concern are part of the business of banking. Therefore, the income arising from such investments is attributable to the business of banking falling under the head “Profits and Gains of Business and Profession”.

3.2 Even though the abovementioned decision was in the context of co-operative

societies/Banks claiming deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the principle is equally applicable to all banks/commercial banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies.

In the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in the matter, the issue is well settled. Accordingly, the Board has decided that no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground by the officers of the Department and appeals already filed, if any, on this ground before Courts/Tribunals may be withdrawn/not pressed upon. This may be brought to the notice of all concerned.”

In view of the above, the learned Senior Advocate would submit that the petition would have to be summarily allowed and the notice issued by the respondent No.1 would have to be quashed.

The learned Standing counsel would have no comment on this aspect of the matter as the circular is

plain in its language. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in terms of the above said circular and the impugned notice is quashed.

Sd/- JUDGE

ykl

KARNATAKA BANK LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX