JUDGMENT V.G. Sabhahit , J.—This appeal is filed by the Revenue being aggrieved by the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'B' in ITA No. 1416/Bang/2003, dated 15-9-2005. 2. This appeal was admitted on 26-7-2007 to consider the substantial question of law framed in ITA No.800/2006. We find that ITA No.800/2006 was dismissed at the stage of admission on 31-1-2011 and is not connected with this case. Therefore, this appeal is deemed to have been admitted on the substantial questions of law framed in the appeal memo which reads as follows: (1) Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the provisions of section 115J and section 115JA are identical and therefore the judgment render under the provisions of Section 115J are applicable, holding that no interest under sections 234B and 234C is payable when provisions of MAT are applied? (2) Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that sub-section (4) to section 115J will not materially alter the provisions and the scheme as contemplated under section 115J of the Act despite the provision clearly contemplating the applicability of other provisions under the Act? 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the above said substantial questions of law have been answered in favour of the Revenue by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Rolta India Ltd., (2011) 330 ITR 470 SC Taxman 594/9 taxmann.com 36 wherein after considering the provisions of sections 115J, 115JA and 234B & 234C of the Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in view of the specific provisions under sections 115JA and 115JB of the Act to the effect that all other provisions of the Act shall apply to the MAT Company and amendments have been made in the relevant Finance Acts for payment of advance tax under sections 115JA and 115JB of the Act and section 234B applies to all companies and there is no exclusion of section 115J/115JA in the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act. 4. The respondent though served with notice, has not chosen to appear before this Court. 5. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, has relied upon the decision in Kwality Biscuits Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000) 243 ITR 519 KAR . 4. The respondent though served with notice, has not chosen to appear before this Court. 5. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, has relied upon the decision in Kwality Biscuits Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000) 243 ITR 519 KAR . The Hon'ble Supreme Court while rendering the recent judgment in Rolta India Ltd. 's case (supra), has considered the decision in Kwality Biscuits Ltd.'s case (supra). Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rolta India Ltd.'s case (supra) we hold that in view of the admitted facts of the case that assessment was made under sections 115J and 115JA of the Act and no advance tax has been deducted, the provisions of sections 234B and 234C would be applicable. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. Accordingly, both the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the revenue. 6. The appeal is allowed. The order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'B' in ITA No. 1416/Bang/2003, dated 15-9-2005 is set aside.