CHAKRAVARTTI, C. J.

( 1 ) THREE questions have been referred in this case by the Calcutta Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal lor the decision of this Court. They arise out of the following facts.

( 2 ) THE assessee, the United Commercial Bank Limited, is a banking company, said to be in a large way of business. It receives an interest income from its investments in securities, makes profit from its banking business and receives a dividend income from certain shares it holds. For the assessment year 1945-46, its net assessable income was determined at Rs. 14,95,826/- and that figure was arrived at by the usual method of computing the income derived from three different sources separately, setting off the loss under one head against the profit under another and then adding together the balance left under the different heads. Thus, the income from interest on securities was computed under Section 8 of the Act and determined at Rs. 23,62,815/ -. The oronts or gains of business were computed under Section 10 and a loss of Rs. 8,86,972/- was found. A small income from other sources, including some dividend income, was computed under Section 12. The loss under the business income was then set off against the income of interest on securities under Section 24 (1) of the Act and after making some further adjustments, the net assessable income was determined at Rs. 14,95,826/-, as I stated a few moments ago.

( 3 ) THE assessee had no complaint to make about the amount at which the assessable income had been determined, but it objected to the method employed in arriving at that amount. The objection was that the interest on securities ought not to have been separately assessed under Section 8, but the income should have been taken to be a part of the business income and the whole of the profits or gains of business, including therein the interest income, should have been computed under Section 10 in a single operation. 'prima facie', that objection would appear to be pointless, because if the business loss could be set off against the interest income even under the method of separate computations, as had in fact been done3 the result under a single or separate computations would be the same and, therefore, separate computation's of the interest on securities and of the business income had not deprived the assessee of any benefit to which it would be otherwise entitled. Indeed, the assessee had received certain deductions under Section 8, which it would not have been allowed if the interest income was computed under Section 10.

( 4 ) THE question, however, was one of a practical importance to the assessee, because it had a business loss of Rs. 3,21,929/- carried forward from the previous year and by reason of the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Act, that loss could be set off only against "the profits or gains of the same business" for any subsequent year. Business loss carried forward can be set off only against business income, but in the present assessment, as made by the Income-tax Officer, there was no business income against which the loss carried forward could be set off, there being only loss, while, of the interest income, a large balance had been left even after the business loss for the year had been set off against it. If the income from interest on securities could also be treated as business income, the loss carried forward could be legally set off against that balance and the assessable income of the assessee would be further reduced by Rs. 3,21,929/-, since it could wholly be absorbed. It was for this reason that the assessee found it useful to contend that the interest on securities should have been computed as a part of its business income and out of that contention, rejected by all the Income-tax authorities, has arisen the first question of law which is in the following terms :"whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the assessee was entitled to set off the business loss of Rs. 3,21,9

Click Here to Read the rest of this document