Learned Counsel For Tne Assessee_ Furtner Sudmitted Tnat Tne 2[Nd] Substantial Question Of Law Nnas Been Answered Against The Revenue By A Bench Of This Court I v. Sabari Enterprises’ (2008) 298 Itr 141 (Kar). The Aforesaid Legal Position Could Not Be Disputed By The Jiearned Counsel For Tne Revenue

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER 272020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASADILT.A. NO.356 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1.|THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA® LTU, JSS TOWERS. BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE. 2.|THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU, JSS TOWERS. 100 FEET RING ROAD BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE-560085. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND* M/S. STATE BANK OF MYSOREHEAD OFFICE, P.B. NO.9727 K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560254. (BY SRI. ANKUR PAI, FOR SRI. K.R. VASUDEVAN, ADV.) _ .., RESPONDENT THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT,1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 28.02.2013 PASSED IN ITA.NO.1243/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05PRAYING TO: (1) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW.STATED THEREIN.» (II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF.THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1243/BANG/2011 DATED28.02.7013.CONFIRMINGTHEORDEROF.THE|APPELLATECOMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THEADDITIONALCOMMISSIONEROF.INCOME|TAX,|(LTU),.BANGALORE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: | JUDGMENT Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.Ankur Pai, learned counsel! for the assessee. 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act’, forShort) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject|matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year2004-05. The appeal was admitted by a Bencn of this.Court vide order dated 13.08.2013 on the following|substantial questions of law: /.Whetner tne Appellate Autnoritieswere correct in nolaing that the assessee has|claimed the provision created under Section36(1)(vila) of the Act and the bad debt written|off is adjusted to the provision and no bad debt|is written off under Section 36(1)(vil) of the Act| and hence provisions of Section 41(1)/41(4) of|the Act are not attracted on a subsequentrecovery of the written off debt, when theprovision created under Section 36(1)(viia) ofthe Act is allowed as a deduction and recorded 2'perverse finding? Il.Whether the Appellate Authoritieswere correct in holding tnat the employees|contribution aqeaucted by the assessee nas beencredited under the respective statue before filingreturn of Income and hence allowable Geductionwitnout taking into consideration, the provisions|of Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(va) of|the Act? 3. When the matter was taken up today, learned|counsel for the assessee submitted that the revenue hadriied a miscellaneous petition before the Income Tax.Appellate Tribunal which has been allowed by theTribunal vide order dated 05.03.2016 and tne matter|has been remitted to the Assessing Officer. The|aforesaid submission could not be disputed by thejiearned counsel for tne revenue. 4. In view of the order dated 05.03.2016 passed|by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the 1 substantial | question of law involved in this appeal has been.rendered academic. However, all contentions with|regard to the 1[Se]substantial question of law are kept|open for the time being. 5. Learned counsel for tne assessee_ furtnersuDmitted tnat tne 2[nd]substantial question of law Nnas|been answered against the revenue by a Bench of this|Court In|"COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs.SABARI ENTERPRISES’ (2008) 298 ITR 141 (KAR).The aforesaid legal position could not be disputed by the|jiearned counsel for tne revenue. 6. For the reasons assigned by a Bench of this Court In-SABARI ENTERPRISES, SUPTd, the 2[nd]substantial question of law is answered against tnerevenue. ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������ ����������� -.�