JUDGMENT N. Kumar , J.—These two appeals are preferred by the revenue challenging the order passed by the Tribunal which has granted the benefit of not adding back the doubtful investments and doubtful advances for computing book profits under Section 115JA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Though the notice was duly published in the newspaper, the respondents have not entered appearance. 2. These two appeals relate to the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. 3. The assessee M/s. Yashaswi Leasing & Finance Ltd., is in the business of hire purchase and leasing. They filed a return of income declaring the total income as nil. The case was reopened under Section 147. After recording the reasons, a notice under Section 148(2) was issued. The assessee's representative produced the books of account and other document. On examination or the same, it was found that the assessee while computing the income under Section 115JB (MAT) had not added back the provisions for non-performing assets of Rs.1,45,88,826/-. The assessee was asked to explain his conduct. The assessee replied that in the computation of income under only those provisions are added back where liabilities are unascertained but not in the case of liability which are ascertained. Therefore, they distinguished their action in not adding back the provisions while computing the income under Section 115JA as per law. Secondly, all financial companies must make a provision for NPA as per the RBI Guidelines. Thirdly, the quantum of amount provided is fixed by the RBI Guidelines. Lastly, the assessee had to ensure the certain percentage of loan provided every year Rejecting the aforesaid assessee's contentions, the Assessing Authority held that the assessee has not calculated the income under Section 115JB as per Statute and therefore, assessment was completed by adding back the provision for NPA of Rs.1,45,88,826/- and the total income was computed. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Appeals. The Commissioner of Appeals held that the assessee being a non-banking financial institution has created the provision for non-performing assets in accordance with RBI Guidelines. This provision is created not against any liabilities but for depreciation of assets and the adjustment on book profits was not warranted. In view of the law declared in the various judgment referred to in the order, the addition was deleted and the appeal came to be allowed. This provision is created not against any liabilities but for depreciation of assets and the adjustment on book profits was not warranted. In view of the law declared in the various judgment referred to in the order, the addition was deleted and the appeal came to be allowed. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue preferred art appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after referring to the various judgments and following the judgment of its bench in the earlier case, held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in adding back the provision for doubtful debts, doubtful investment and doubtful advances for computing book profit under Section 115JB and dismissed the appeal. It is against this order, the present appeals are filed. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the revenue assailing the impugned order contended that in view of the amendment to Section 115JA by Finance Act (No. 2) of 2009, which came into effect retrospectively from 01.04.1998, the order passed by the Tribunal is illegal and requires to be set aside. 5. Section 115JA deals with deemed income relating to certain companies. Explanation (2) of the said provision defines the book profit as the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account for the relevant previous year prepared under sub-section (2) as increased by the amount or amounts set aside as provisions made for determination in the value of any assets. If any amount referred to any clauses (a) to (g) is debited to the profit and loss account, prior to the amendment, the amount or amounts set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset was not included in the book profit. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal was in accordance with the then existing law. The direction by the Assessing Authority to add back the provision to the book profit in computation of income under Section 115JB was incorrect. However, in view of the aforesaid amendment, which is made retrospective in operation with effect from 01.04.1998, the said amendment applies to the relevant assessment year. The result is that the amount or amounts set aside as provisions for diminution in the value of any asset is to be added for the purpose of computing net profit out of book profit. The result is that the amount or amounts set aside as provisions for diminution in the value of any asset is to be added for the purpose of computing net profit out of book profit. The order passed by the Assessing Authority makes it very clear that after perusing the books of account it was found that the disputed items are not ascertained liabilities but reserves created for doubtful debts, which is an asset. The ascertained liability continues to be reflected in the subsequent assessment years under the head 'Sundry Debtors'. If these were ascertained liabilities, then the assessee has not written it off from the books in accordance with the provisions of 36(i)(vii). The copies of sundry debtors for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02 produced by the assessee discloses that they were forming part of NPA but were not reflected in sundry debtors for the current assessment year but also in the subsequent assessment years with the same sum. Therefore, the said liability is not NPA but the performing assets as they have continued to be forming part of sundry debtors. As the aforesaid doubtful debts were not actually written off under Section 36(i)(vi) from the books the said amount is to be added in arriving at the net income from the book profits. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the change in law, the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the Appellate Commissioner is set aside. The order passed by the Assessing Authority is restored. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law framed in this appeal are answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.