JUDGMENT Deepak Verma, J.— Heard Sri M.V. Seshachala, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri K. Venugopalaraju, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal under Section 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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated January 25, 2007 passed in I.T.A. No. 291/Bang/2005 pertaining to the assessment year 2001-02. The respondent-assessee had filed return of income showing an income of Rs. 4,60,96,960 and was assessed under Section 115JB of the Act. The return filed by the assessee was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. 3. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that certain income had escaped the assessment and, therefore, he was constrained to issue notice to the assessee under Section 148 of the Act. As a consequence thereof, the assessment was reopened. 4. Thereafter the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. A sum of Rs. 57,06,335 marked by the assessee as bad debt was disallowed. The Appellate Commissioner deleted the addition of the aforesaid amount being the provision for bad and doubtful debts while computing the book profit under Section 115JB of the Act. Further appeal was preferred by the Revenue against the said appellate order to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which also proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. Hence, this further appeal under Section 260A of the Act. 5. 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. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi, AIR 2002 SC 2131 . 6. 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.