High Court Of Karnataka
CIT & ANR. vs. Mysore Paper Mills Ltd.
Section 115JB, 148
Asst. Year 2001-02
Deepak Verma & K.L. Manjunath, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 532 of 2007
23rd January, 2008
Counsel Appeared :
M.V. Seshachala, for the Appellants : K. Venugopalaraju, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
Deepak Verma, J.
2. This appeal under s. 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter shall be referred to in short as “the Act”), has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal, dt. 25th Jan., 2007 passed in ITA No. 291/Bang/2005 pertaining to the asst. yr. 2001-02. The respondent-assessee had filed return of income showing an income of Rs. 4,60,96,960 and was assessed under s. 115JB of the Act. The return filed by the assessee was processed under s. 143(1) of the Act.
The AO was of the opinion that certain income had escaped the assessment and, therefore, he was constrained to issue notice to the assessee under s. 148 of the Act. As a consequence thereof, the assessment was reopened. Thereafter the assessment was completed under s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 of the Act. A sum of Rs. 57,06,335 marked by the assessee as bad debt was disallowed. The CIT(A) deleted the addition of the aforesaid amount being the provision for bad and doubtful debts while computing the book profit under s. 115JB of the Act. Further appeal was preferred by the Revenue against the said appellate order to the Tribunal which also proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. Hence, this further appeal under s. 260A of the Act.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the records, we are of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law arises for our decision. The point in issue stands answered by the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 174 CTR (SC) 521 : (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC).
The said view of the Supreme Court has been taken into consideration by our High Court as well as by several other High Courts. Nothing contra was shown to us which could have convinced us to take a different view. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the opinion that there is no substance in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.
[Citation : 322 ITR 428]
