Judgment :- Appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act posing for our answer the following substantial question of law:- Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions for non performing assets/doubtful debts/advances made by the assessee cannot be added back to the book profits of the Company as per explanation to Section 115JA of the Income Tax Act. 1961 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the purpose of computing income under Section 115JA of the Act. 2. Brief facts leading to the appeal are as under:- Assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 with limited liability. 3. Assessment year is 1999-2000. Dispute relates to the computation of book profits of the assessee for the previous year relevant to the assessment year, required to be arrived at, in terms of the provisions of Section 115JA of the Income Tax, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 4. This section has enabled the Revenue to levy tax on a minimum, total income of a Company, equal to 30% of the book profits as computed in terms of the provisions of Section 115JA of the Act, irrespective of the actual total income otherwise that the company could arrive at in the normal course and offer it to tax. 5. Purpose of the present appeal is, as to whether certain amounts which had been set apart or provided for, by way of amounts required to meet possible future write off as bad and doubtful debts of the company, is an amount which is covered by clause (c) of the explanation to Sub Section 1 of Section 115JA of the Act. 6. While it was the version of the assessee that it is not, one such amount which is within the scope of clause (c) of the explanation, the Revenue thought otherwise and was of the view that the amount is very much an amount which is covered by clause (c) and therefore, added back this amount to the amount otherwise arrived at by the assessee as it’s book profits and which had already been computed in terms of the procedure envisaged under the provisions of paras 2 and 3 of Schedule 6 to the Companies Act 1956. 7. 7. By the method as suggested by the Revenue, the actual quantum of book profits for the purpose of Section 115JA of the Act would go up by this precise amount and the tax liability of the assessee also would go up proportionately. 8. While the Assessing Officer did not agree with the stand of the assessee that it is not an amount covered by clause (c) of the explanation in the appeal by the assessee, the Commission (Appeals) reversed the trend and opined that the assessee was right in contending that the amount was not covered by clause(c). In the further appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal also have affirmed the view taken by the Commissioner of Appeals, the Revenue is in further appeal before us. 9. While submission of Smt.Vani, learned counsel appearing for the assessee is that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – VS – HCL COMNET SYSTEMS & SERVICES LTD, reported in 305 ITR 409 of the year 2008 and the matter possibly could have been disposed of following and applying the law as declared by the Supreme Court to this case, the Revenue having sought for some accommodation, in contemplation of some future developments and as it has happened, the matter having not seen any progress in this regard, the present stand of the Revenue is, that the answer to the question is squarely covered by the intervening legislative development by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, in which the Parliament though it fit to introduce a further clause to the explanation viz. clause (g) as under:- The amount or amounts set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset and such amendment having now been given retrospective operation with effect from 1.4.1998, the question is taken beyond the scope of any debate and even though the judgment of the Supreme Court possibly could have been a decisive factor in answering the question earlier, as of now the parliament being conscious of the judgment and to get over the consequence of the judgment in the matter of sustaining the revenue of the State and having brought about suitable legislative changes to the Income Tax Act, the question has to be necessarily answered in favour of the Revenue as being squarely covered by the statutory provision as of now and this provision becomes applicable to the case of the assessee even in respect of the question as it arises for the assessment year 1999-2000. 10. While such is the submission on behalf of the Revenue by Mr.Aravind, Smt.Vani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee very fairly and courageously submits that the legal position is such that, and even of facts, the amended provision does apply to the case. 11. Sri. Shankar, learned counsel who was requested by us and who was permitted to make submissions on the possibilities of understanding the scope of the amended provision has assisted the court and has made the following submissions. 12. Sri.Shankar, would submit that the legislative insertion in the form of Clause (g) to the explanation will be attracted only to fact situations where a provisions is as such made for providing the diminution in the value of any asset of the Company and a provision is where it is not actually done, but in contemplation or in the wake of future possibility to effectuate that. 13. Submission is that if it a case of debt, perhaps as in the present case and if the bad debts is actually written off i.e. a situation where to that extent the overall asset of the Company gets reduced and it will not be credited on the liabilities side and therefore, such a situation is not within the contemplation of clause(g). Submission is that distinction has to be maintained between actually setting aside an amount in which event it is achieved and a provision being made for meeting future possibility in which even it is not actually done now, but provided for a future point of time to be carried out. 14. While submission appears to be an acceptable submission on the face of it, as in the instant case, such a situation does not arise and as fairy submitted by Smt.Vani learned counsel for the assessee perhaps the correctness of this interpretation can be examined as and when it actually arises and it is to be left open, for the present. 15. For the present it is not in doubt or dispute that the question as posed for our answer is one which answers itself because of clause (g) of the explanation to Sub Section 1 of Section 115JA of the Act and has now to be answered in the negative and against the assessee. Section reads as under. “Section 115JA(1): Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, where in the case of an assessee, being a company, the total income, as computed under this Act in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1997 (hereinafter in this section referred to as the relevant previous year) is section referred to as the relevant previous year) is less than thirty per cent of its book profit, the total income of such assessee chargeable to tax for the relevant previous year shall be deemed to be an amount equal to thirty percent of such book profit.” Explanation-For the purposes of this section, “book profit” means the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account for the relevant previous year prepared under sub-Section (2), as increased by- .(a) xxxx .(b) xxxx .(c) xxxx .(d) xxxx .(e) xxxx .(f) xxxx .(g) the amount or amounts set aside provision for diminution in the value of any asset. 16. 16. It is therefore, we answer the question accordingly and allow this appeal by setting aside the order of the Tribunal and hold that the view taken by the Assessing Authority is sustained, if not on the earlier interpretation in terms of clause (c) of the explanation I, but because of the insertion of the new clause (g) to the explanation to Finance (No.2) Act of 2009 with retrospective effective from 1.4.1998. Appeal Allowed. 17. However, Smt.Vani, learned counsel for the assessee, would make a request that liberty may be reserved in favour of the assessee for claiming the benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case cited supra in the event courts’ should find that the present satisfactory provision viz. clause (g) of the explanation to Sub Section 1 of Section 115JA of the Act is found to be wanting and not valid in terms of the constitutional provisions and to that extent liberty may be reserved to the assessee to claim such benefit to have the case decided in accordance with that and to reserve liberty to the assessee for such course of action. 18. However fortuitous may be the circumstance in favour of the Revenue, we are not in a position to accede to the request made by the learned counsel for the assessee for the reason it is a request posed on a premise in the area of speculation and courts will not embark on predictions on the basis of hypothetical situations or to speculate as to what can be the possibility on the happening of a future contingent event. 19. It is for this reason we decline to accede to the request made by the learned counsel for the assessee.