JUDGMENT
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.
1. The Revenue contends that notwithstanding the absence of the words “cess or fee” in Section 43B(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, prior to its amendment, which amendment was with effect from April 1, 1989, the section should be regarded as being applicable in respect of payment of cess and fees as well for the assessment year 1985-86 when that amendment was not on the statute book. The Tribunal having rejected that contention, the Revenue is in appeal.
2. Prior to an amendment the relevant part of the section referred to, “any sum payable by the assessee by way of tax or duty under any law for the time being in force”. After the amendment that provision reads :
“43B(a). any sum payable by the assessee by way of tax, duty, cess or fee, by whatever name called, under any law for the time being in force.”
3. Any doubt with regard to the imposition of burden on the taxpayer arising from any equivocal words used in the statute will have to be resolved by giving the benefit to the taxpayer. Even if the word “tax” referred to in the unamended provision can be said to include royalty nevertheless, having regard to the subsequent amendment with specific reference to cess or fees and the statutory imposition by whatever name called, it will have to be held that the Legislature itself recognised that prior to amendment the relevant section was not required to be construed as taking within its fold payments such as royalty. It has been covered after the amendment.
4. The Tribunal, in our view, was right in holding that the Revenue cannot be allowed to take advantage of the amended provision in order to increase the burden of the assessee for a prior assessment year by denying to him the benefit which had been given by the Assessing Officer, who had rightly regarded the assessee as being entitled to receive a deduction for the amount of royalty on the basis of the fact that such liability had accrued, the assessee having followed the mercantile system of accounting. The appeal is dismissed.