ORDER
G. Chowdhury, Judicial Member
1. The appellant is a closely held company carrying on business in electronic goods. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), by which the appeal filed by the assessee was rejected holding that the order under Section 154 passed by the Assessing Officer Was correct.
2. The assessee filed its return for the assessment year 1988-89 admitting total income as nil and income under Section 115J of Rs. 54,250. The assessment was completed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 5-9.-1988. Subsequently it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that while computing the income under Section 115J the assessee has adopted the net profit as per the profit and loss account at Rs. 2,93,638 as against the correct income of Rs. 4,15,148. Accordingly, a notice under Section 154 for rectification of mistake was issued. On receiving the said notice, the assessee appeared and submitted its explanation stating that the computation of income under Section 115J was originally correct and as per Parts II and III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act necessary provision has to be made for investment allowance, taxation, dividend, etc., in arriving at the net profit. Accordingly a sum of Rs. 2,93,688 has been arrived at as the book profit as per the Companies Act. As per the Explanation to Section 115J(1A) the amount of income-tax paid or payable or the amounts set aside for meeting the liabilities other than the ascertained liabilities, etc. will have to be added. Accordingly Rs. 15,000 was added to the book profit arrived at as above. The Assessing Officer held that the contention of the assessee was not correct and held that all the disallowances listed out in items (a) to (ha) have to be disallowed and added back for arriving at the book profit and not either one of the items. The Assessing Officer accordingly rectified the mistake. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.
3. The learned representative for the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to rectify the order under Section 154 inasmuch the law is very clear on this point. Our attention was drawn to the Explanation to Section 115J(1A). According to the assessee for the purpose of book profit any one of the items enumerated in (a) to (ha) may be increased and not all the items should be disallowed and added back for arriving at the book profit because in between every item from (a) to (ha) the word ‘or’ is there. Accordingly it has to be taken as disjunctive. The learned departmental representative placed reliance upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that on a plain reading of the Explanation it is clear that all the disallowances disallowed in items (a) to (ha) have to be disallowed and the word ‘or’ cannot be treated as disjunctive for the purpose of this Section
4. We have heard the parties. The main dispute of the assessee is with regard to the interpretation of the word ‘or’ used in item Nos. (a) to (ha) in the Explanation to Section 115J(1A). On a perusal of the said provision it is clear that the intention of the Legislature was not that any one of the said items was to be disallowed and not all. All the items are different in nature. Therefore in computing the book profit whichever item is available for disallowance may be disallowed and added back for arriving at the correct figure. That was the intention of the Legislature. Although the word ‘or’ has been used here in between the items, but sometimes ‘or’ is meant for ‘and’. In this regard reliance can be placed on Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes at pages 232 and 233, which is as under :
In ordinary usage, ‘and’ is conjunctive and ‘or’ disjunctive. But to carry out the intention of the Legislature it may be necessaiy to read ‘and’ in place of the conjunction ‘or’ and vice versa.
Under the aforesaid circumstances we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), as the error was apparent on the face of the record. Hence the appeal is dismissed.