The Commissioner of Income Tax and The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Tata Coffee Ltd. (Formerly known as Consolidated Coffee Ltd.)

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—This appeal is by the Revenue against the order dated 2.3.2006 passed by the ITAT in ITA. No. 1500/Bang/2004 for examining the following substantial question of law:

Whether the Tribunal was correct in reverting the finding of the Assessing Officer who held that the bad and doubtful debts is not for meeting and ascertaining liability and was therefore required to be added back under Clause (c) of the explanation to Section 115JB(2) of the Act for the purpose of computing Book profit.

Smt. Vani and Sri. Lava, learned Counsel for the respondent - assessee, who had been directed to take notice for the respondent, have already caused appearance for the very respondent in the connected appeal in ITA. No. 1324/06 and have entered appearance in this appeal also.

We have heard Sri, Aravind, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department and Sri. Lava, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee.

Both the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and learned Counsel for the assessee submits that the question is now covered by the earlier decision in ITA. No. 113/2007 disposed of on 9.9.2009, wherein the question has been answered in favour of the Revenue in the light of the amendment to the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short ''the Act'') by adding Clause (g) to the Explanation to Sub-section (2) of Section 115JA of the Act in terms of Section 44 of Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 and which has been given retrospective operation w.e.f. 1.4.1998.

It is therefore, the question has to be necessarily answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and accordingly, the appeal is allowed.