( 1 ) ON an application under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions set out at pages 2 and 3 of the paper book :"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the circular of the Central Board of Revenue dated October 6, 1952, read with the subsequent circular dated October 9, 1984, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,46,37,731 being the interest on sticky advances and/or debts doubtful of recovery credited during the year in question to the interest suspense account is taxable ?" ( 2 ) WHETHER, in view of the specific observation of the majority judgment of the Supreme Court in the case reported in State Bank of Travancore v. CIT that the court was not concerned with the actual effect of the aforesaid circulars and, therefore, the same need not be exempted and the further observation of the majority judgment that on what lines the rights of the parties should be adjusted in consonance with the justice in view of the aforesaid circulars was not the subject-matter adjudicated in the said decision, the Tribunal was justified in not giving the benefit of the circulars to the assessee and in treating the net increase of Rs. 1,46,37,931 in the interest suspense account as the income of the asses-see ?"2. The assessee is a banking company. The assessment year is 1976-77 and the accounting period ends on December 31, 1975. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that a net amount of Rs. 1,46,37,731 being the interest on debts doubtful of recovery has been credited to the suspense account during the accounting period. The case of the assessee was that the interest which has been put in the suspense account is not taxable in view of the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes being Circular No. 41 (V-6)D of 1952, dated October 6, 1952. The Income tax Officer did not accept the claim of the assessee. He followed the decision taken by the apex court in the case of State Bank of Travancore v. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 102 and added the interest shown in the suspense account in the income of the assessee. The Income tax Officer did not accept the claim of the assessee. He followed the decision taken by the apex court in the case of State Bank of Travancore v. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 102 and added the interest shown in the suspense account in the income of the assessee. ( 3 ) THE view taken by the Income-tax Officer has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as by the Tribunal. ( 4 ) AT the outset learned counsel for the assessee, Dr. Pal, submits that the latest decision of the apex court in the case of UCO Bank v. CIT and Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 where their Lordships have reconsidered the issue and they have not followed their earlier view expressed in the State Bank of Travancore v. CIT. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Mullick, submits that in the case of UCO Bank, their Lordships have considered the circular issued in 1984 and the issue regarding the circular issued in 1952 was not there before their Lordships. At page 901 in the Case of UCO Bank, their Lordships have clarified that the question raised is similar to the question which their Lordships have considered in Civil Appeal No. 235 of 1996, pertaining to the United Commercial Bank. In these two appeals, the relevant assessment years are 1972-73 to 1976-77. ( 6 ) THEIR Lordships observed that during these assessment years the circular which was in force was the circular of October 6, 1952, and that circular applied to banking companies. It applies to interest accruing to moneylenders on loans entered in the suspense account because of the extreme unlikelihood of their being recovered that cannot be brought in the ambit of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as that cannot be taxed in view of the circular issued by the Board, ( 7 ) DR. Pal, further submits that no part of the interest has been recovered, which was credited in the suspense account till today. ( 8 ) EVEN otherwise if any part of the interest is received later that can be taxed under Section 41 (1) of the Act, in the year of receipt. Pal, further submits that no part of the interest has been recovered, which was credited in the suspense account till today. ( 8 ) EVEN otherwise if any part of the interest is received later that can be taxed under Section 41 (1) of the Act, in the year of receipt. ( 9 ) CONSIDERING these facts and the latest decision of the Supreme Court in UCO Bank v. CIT, wherein their Lordships have not followed the earlier view taken in the case of State Bunk of Travancore v. CIT, the Tribunal has committed an error. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained on the aforesaid question. In the result, we answer both the questions in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. ( 10 ) THE reference so made is disposed of accordingly.