Dy. CIT v. Punjab National Bank (2020) 82 ITR 95 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Valuation of stock-Bank-Premium paid at time of purchase of securities-Valuation of securities held to maturity category at cost-Followed consistently-Addition is held to be not justified-Loss on shifting of securities from held for trading and available for sale categories to held to maturity category-allowable as business loss. [S. 28(i)]

The assessee-bank claimed loss of Rs. 212.47 crores on account of amortisation of premium paid at the time of purchase of securities held under the held to maturity category. The Assessing Officer held  that the securities were not held till maturity but were disposed of by the assessee before the period of maturity without strict compliance with the Reserve Bank of India guidelines. Further, the assessee had claimed the held to maturity securities to be stock-in-trade for the purpose of Income-tax. Since the assessee was selling the securities before maturity at will, the loss on account of amortisation of the premium could not be treated as provision for an ascertained liability. Thus, the losses claimed by the assessee on this account were notional in nature and not an allowable expenditure. CIT(A) deleted the addition. Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT (A) under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, he disallowed the amortisation claimed. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) had deleted the addition. On appeal Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A). (AY.2013-14)