TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (3) TMI 162
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....included the aforestated amount of Rs. 21,320. The assessee filed an application under section 154 of the Act for rectification of the order with the submission that the proof for payment of Rs. 14,939 on account of bonus was already enclosed with the return and, therefore, no addition for Rs. 14,939 should have been made. Objections as to addition of Rs. 206 relating to Provident Fund and Rs. 804 relating to Employees Insurance Scheme were also made. The Assessing Officer, however, observed that there was no evidence of payment of bonus filed along with the return of income. He rejected the application of assessee under section 154, vide order dated 31-8-1990. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT (A), who deleted the addition of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uted excessive loss or has not under-paid the tax, and accordingly issued notice under section 143(2) and completed the assessment under section 143(3). He, however, stuck to the intimation under section 143(1)(a) making it as the basis of computation of income under section 143(3). The Assessing Officer was clearly in error, since the intimation under section 143(1)(a) ceased to exist for the purposes of assessment on merit under section 143(3) which is based on the return submitted by the assessee. In this view of the matter, the appeal of the assessee against the order under section 154 is mere academic and does not require to be dealt with separately. 4. Now we proceed with the objections of the assessee in appeal against the order dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ious year in which liability to pay such sum was incurred is allowable as deduction if the evidence of such payment is furnished by the assessee along with the return of income. Now the crucial point of determination is as to whether furnishing of evidence of payment along with the return of income is mandatory. 7. The following passage from Crawford on statutory construction has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Lal Chaggan Lal Patel v. Agriculture Produce Market Committee AIR 1976 SC 263, 267 : " The question as to whether a statute is mandatory or directory depends upon the intent of the Legislature and not upon the language in which the intent is clothed. The meaning and intention of the Legislature must....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the result would be that on one hand the assessee has made the payment and on the other he is unable to get the deduction thereof. If such strict construction is placed upon proviso to section 43B, it is likely to result in injustice. So far as the filing of evidence along with the return is concerned, it should be interpretated as directory and not mandatory. The assessee has since filed the evidence of payment at a later stage, it deserves to be allowed particularly when there is no doubt about the genuineness with the said evidence. The Assessing Officer is, therefore, directed to allow deduction of Rs. 14,939. It is claimed by the assessee that the payment of bonus of Rs. 5,282 was made on 13-4-1989, 20-4-1989 and 1-5-1989. It is supp....