JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. In all these appeals a common question of law raised is regarding interpretation of Clause (b) of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with the second proviso to the said section and Clause (va) of Sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the said Act. The matter relates to deposit of contributions made towards provident fund, etc., after the close of the accounting period but before the due date for filling of the return of income and whether in such cases the assessees are entitled to relief under Section 43B(b) of the Act. 2. Learned Counsel for both sides have submitted that the question raised in these appeals stands covered by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Assam Tribune, wherein it was held that the contributions towards provident fund, etc., paid before the filing of the return by the assessees are entitled for the deduction. We also find that the above decision rendered by this Court was based on an earlier decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat Bamboo and Timber Suppliers. 3. Mr. Bhuyan appearing for the appellants has fairly submitted that no appeal/special leave petition against the above decision was preferred by the appellants as the amounts involved were small. Mr. Bhuyan has also drawn our attention to a contrary decision of the hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd., [2000] 242 ITR 114 (Ker). Mr. Bhuyan, has, therefore, prayed that the matter may be reviewed by this Court. 4. Dr. Saraf appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that in the meantime, the relevant proviso to Section 43B(b) has been amended and the relevant words "referred to in Clauses (a), (c), (d), (e), or (f)" have been omitted with effect from April I, 2004. According to Dr. Saraf, the effect of such omission without any saving Clause of the General Clauses Act, means that the above provisions were not existence or never existed. Dr. Saraf has placed reliance on the decisions of the Constitution Bench of the apex court in the cases of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India, 2000 (119) ELT 257 (SC) and in Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. v. Director of Enforcement, 1970 CriLJ 588. The above decisions were reiterated in the case of General Finance Co. Dr. Saraf has placed reliance on the decisions of the Constitution Bench of the apex court in the cases of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India, 2000 (119) ELT 257 (SC) and in Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. v. Director of Enforcement, 1970 CriLJ 588. The above decisions were reiterated in the case of General Finance Co. v. Asst. CIT, [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC). 5. On consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the earlier decisions of this Court we are not inclined to review the decisions in Bharat Bamboo and Assam Tribune and accordingly we hold that the decision of the above cases shall apply to the present appeals. 6. The appeals, therefore stand dismissed as aforesaid. In favour of Assessee