(-1-) hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 3598 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant Versus M/s. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.. Respondent Mr. P.S. Sahadevan i/by Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr.A.K. Jasani for Respondent. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE, JJ. R.S.MOHITE, JJ. R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED: APRIL 02, 2009 DATED: APRIL 02, 2009 DATED: APRIL 02, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The revenue is in appeal on the following questions : (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in approving the decision of the CIT(A) that there being no failure on the part of the Respondent to disclose fully and truly all material as per the proviso to section 147, the re-opening of the assessment was invalid in law, without appreciating that the reopening of the assessment was initiated by virtue of Explanation 1 below section 147 of the Act? (-2-) (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal erred in not giving a finding on whether in the present case, the Explanation 1 did or did not override the proviso to section 147 of the Act? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal erroneously sought to apply the facts of the case reported in the case of Usha Martine Industries Ltd. 104, ITD 249 (SB) without regard to the self-disallowance of the provision for doubtful debt made by the Respondent in the computation under the normal provisions of the Act and without regard to the effect of Section 115JA(4) of the Act? (4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in not considering the fact that the Respondent itself had admitted that the impugned provision for doubtful debt was a "liability" while arguing that the same was in ascertained liability?" (-3-) . In so far as question Nos. (1) and (2) are concerned,the tribunal has relied on the judgment of this court in Bhor Industries Ltd. Vs.A.C.I. 267 ITR 161. The same view has also been taken in Parikh Petrol Chemical Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs.ACIT and Others, 266 ITR 196. In the light of the same, the said questions would not arise. . In so far as question Nos. (3) and (4) are concerned, the issue was considered by the Special Bench in the case of Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Usha Martine Industries Ltd. (2007) 104 itr 249 (Kol) (SB) which view has since been approved by the Supreme Court in C.I.T.Vs. HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd. (2008) 305 I.T.R. 409 (SC). Considering the above, the said questions also would not arise and consequently there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)