I.S. NIGAM, A.M.: ORDER This is appeal filed by Revenue against order of CIT (A), Bombay. 2. assessee is limited company and appeal relates to asst. yr. 1979-80. schedules 6(b) and 6(d) to balance sheet as at 31st Dec., 1978 showing sundry debtors at Rs. 1,07,71,747 and loans and advances at Rs. 27,52,051 were as follows : Sundry "6(b) Rs. Rs. Debtors Secured considered good : Outstanding for period 24,022 exceeding six months Others 4,70,380 4,94,402 Unsecured : Outstanding for period exceeding six months : Considered 3,21,385 good Considered 8,41,866 doubtful 11,63,251 Others : Considered 99,55,960 good Considered doubtful 1,11,19,211 Less : Provision for 8,41,866 1,02,77,345 doubtful debts 1,07,71,747" Loans and "6(d) advances : (unsecured considered good . unless otherwise stated) : Advances recoverable in . cash or in kind or . for value to be received : Considered 24,05,749 good Considered 75,382 doubtful 24,81,131 Less : Provision for 75,382 doubtful advances 24,05,749 Deposit with Industrial Development Bank of India under Companies Deposits 2,92,595 (Surcharge on Income-tax) Scheme, 1976 (including interest accrued Rs. 30,680 previous year Rs. 14,965 Taxes 11,307 recoverable With excise authorities on 42,400 27,52,051" current account It was claimed before ITO in course of surtax assessment proceedings that provision for doubtful debts amounting to Rs. 8,41,866 and provision for doubtful advances amounting to Rs. 75,382 were reserves and should, therefore, be included in capital for purpose of determining surtax liability under Companies (Profit) Surtax Act, 1964 ('the Act'). This claim was not accepted by ITO but was allowed in appeal by CIT (A). Revenue has, therefore, come up in present appeal before us. 3 . learned Departmental Representative, Shri Mahadeshwar, cited before us ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1981) 25 CTR (SC) 186 : (1981) 132 ITR 559 (SC), Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in cases of CIT vs. Eyre Smelting (P) Ltd. (1979) 118 ITR 857 (Cal) and CIT vs. Jugantar (P) Ltd. (1981) 21 CTR (Cal) 270 : (1981) 128 ITR 619 (Cal) and rulings of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in cases of CIT vs. Golden Tobacco Co. Ltd. 1977 CTR (Bom) 126 : (1977) 108 ITR 453 (Bom) and Parke Davis (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 13 CTR (Bom) 219 : (1981) 130 ITR 813 (Bom) in support of contention that amounts provided to meet any liability, contingency, commitment, or diminution in value of asset known to exist at date of balance sheet was not 'reserve' but 'provision', which could not be included in capital for purpose of determining surtax liability under Act. Proceeding further, he pointed out that even according to balance sheet of assessee-company and Schedules of Act annexed thereto, provision for doubtful debts as well as provision for doubtful advances was not only called 'provision' and not 'reserve' by assessee-company itself, it was exactly of identical amount out of unsecured sundry debtors and unsecured loans and advances, which were considered by assessee-company to be doubtful on date of balance sheet, unlike other amounts, which were considered good. 4 . In these circumstances, both of these amounts were to meet diminution in value of sundry debtors and loans and advances known to exist at date of balance sheet and these amounts were mere provisions, which could not be treated as 'reserve. Summing up Shri Mahadeshwar vehemently argued before us that CST (A) wrongly directed that these amounts should be treated as 'reserves' and included in capital computation for purpose of determining surtax liability under Act. 5 . On other hand, assessee's learned counsel, Shri Dastur, submitted on authority of ruling of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Godless Nerolac Paints Ltd. vs. CIT (1984) 41 CTR (Bom) 172 : (1984) 15ITR 484 (Bom) that where amounts were transferred to account styled as 'provision for bad debts' year after year but bad debts as and when they occurred were debited to P&L A/c and not to provision, amount standing to credit of provision, which was carried forward from year to year in balance sheet was in nature of reserve, which should be included in computation of capital for purposes of surtax under Act. He also referred to another ruling of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Jupiter General Insurance Co. (1975) 101 ITR 370 (Bom), where Hon'ble High Court upheld finding of Tribunal that amount standing to credit of accounts of company as 'reserve for doubtful debts' was includible in capital computation under Act. Shri Dastur filed before us copies of orders of Tribunal in assessee's own case for asst. yrs. 1976-77 and 1977-78 (ST Appeal Nos. 53 and 54 (Bom) of 1981) and 1978-79 (ST Appeal No. 54 (Bom) of1982) where Tribunal had held that provision for doubtful debts and provision for doubtful advances should be included in capital computation for purpose of determining surtax liability under Act. Shri Dastur submitted to us that facts for earlier three years were identical to those for year under appeal and, therefore, there was no reason why we should not follow our order for earlier three years particularly in assessee's own case. He, therefore, vehemently argued before us that provision for doubtful debts as well as provision for doubtful advances should be treated as reserve and included in capital computation for purpose of determining surtax liability under Act for this assessment year as well. 6. We have carefully considered rival submissions. At outset it will be necessary to point out that we have gone through orders of Tribunal in appeals for asst. yrs. 1976-77 and 1977-78 and for asst. yr. 1978-79 and do not find that fact that what was shown as provision for doubtful debts and provision for doubtful advances was identical amount, which on date of balance sheet, was considered by assessee-company to be doubtful out of sundry debtors and out of loans and advances was brought to notice of Tribunal or considered by Tribunal while deciding appeals for these years. When there are additional facts, which do not appear to have been considered by Tribunal while deciding appeals for earlier years, there is no reason why we should follow orders of earlier years and not take decision on merits after considering additional facts brought to our notice in appeal for this year. In case of Jupiter General Insurance Co. (supra), Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that question whether reserve for bad and doubtful debts was to meet specific liability or was 'reserve' not earmarked for any specific liability was decided by Tribunal on consideration of factual position following principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, no question of law arose out of order of Tribunal. This ruling of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, therefore, is of no help to us in present case. In other case of Godless Nerolac Paints Ltd. (supra) decided by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, amount transferred to reserve for doubtful debts had been determined ad hoc without reference to any specific anticipated liability and without any meticulous calculation of chances of recovery unlike in present case where amount transferred to provision for doubtful debts and provision for doubtful advances was identical amount, which, on date of balance sheet, was considered by management of assessee-company to be doubtful out of Sundry debtors and out of loans and advances.This ruling of Hon'ble Bombay High Court also, therefore, will not be applicable to facts of present case. We have authority of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. (supra). Hon'ble Bombay High Court in cases of Golden Tobacco Co. Ltd. (supra) and Parke Davis (India) Ltd. (supra) and Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in cases of Eyre Smelting (P) Ltd. (supra) and Jugantar (P) Ltd. (supra) that any amount set aside to meet liability, contingency, commitment or diminution in value of assets known to exist at date of balance sheet is not 'reserve' but provisions. Viewed in this context it cannot be disputed that what was shown as provision for doubtful debts and provision for doubtful advances was identical amount, which, on date of balance sheet, was considered to be doubtful out of sundry debtors and out of loans and advances according to balance sheet of company itself. These provisions were, therefore, to meet diminution in value of assets known to exist at date of balance sheet. These two amounts were, therefore, merely provisions as rightly described by assessee-company also in its balance sheet and not reserves as claimed by assessee-company before lower authorities and before us. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that these two amounts of provision for doubtful debts and provision of doubtful advances were mere provisions, which could not be treated as reserves and consequently, could not be included in capital computation for purpose of determining surtax liability under Act. On this issue, therefore, order of CIT (A) appears to be incorrect and is hereby reversed. 7. Before we close, we would like to place on record our deep appreciation of very able manner in which both, learned Departmental Representative, Shri Mahadeshwar, as well as assessee's learned counsel, Shri Dastur, put forward their respective arguments. 8. appeal filed by Revenue succeeds and is hereby allowed. *** SECOND INCOME TAX OFFICER v. BOROSIL GLASS WORKS LTD.