JUDGMENT Deepak Verma, J.—Heard Sri M.V. Seshachala, learned Counsel for the appellants on admission. 2. This appeal is at the instance of the Revenue preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench "A" on December 12, 2007, in I.T.A. No. 553/Bang/2006 for the assessment year 2003-04. The appeal before the Tribunal was also at the instance of the Revenue. 3. According to the appellant, the following substantial question of law would arise for consideration by this court: Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the belated payment of the employer's contribution to provident fund beyond the stipulated period under the said Act, cannot be treated as the income of the assessee under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act as held by the Assessing Officer in view of the amendment to Section 43B of the Act? 4. However, it has not been disputed before us, that the said question of law has already been answered by the Division Bench of this Court reported in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sabari Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141 KAR . The said Division Bench judgment has also been followed subsequently by other Division Bench judgment. The question has been answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 5. In the light of the judgment in the matter of Sabari Enterprises, no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Bench as the same has already been answered. 6. Thus, according to us, it is no more required to be answered by us and the appeal stands hereby dismissed.