Judgment :- N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. The question of law referred for our consideration by the Tribunal under s. 256(2) of the IT Act reads as under: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the same sum of Rs. 44, 541 being the provision for bonus should be allowed as deduction in computing the total income of the assessee ?" 2. The assessee is carrying on insurance business and was assessed in the status of AOP. In computing the income of the assessee for the previous asst. yr. 1973-74, the relevant accounting year ending on 31st December, 1972, the assessee made a provision of Rs. 44, 541 towards the bonus and claimed the same as deduction from its business income in addition to the claim for deduction of actual payment of bonus. The claim of the assessee for deduction of the provision was made on the basis that the assessee-company got merged with the General Insurance Corporation during the course of the calendar year 1972 and, therefore, it made a provision for bonus as it was the last year of its business. The ITO rejected the claim of the assessee and held that the assessee has claimed double deduction towards bonus, one, by way of actual payment and another on the basis of provision, and if both the amounts were allowed, it would not reflect the correct income of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1973-74. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) held that the accounting year ended on the asst. yr. 1973-74 which was the last year in which the erstwhile owner of the business was being assessed and the real income of the assessee has to be brought to tax and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction in addition to the claim for deduction of the bonus actually paid. He, therefore, deleted the addition of Rs. 44, 541 made by the ITO in the original assessment computed by him. The Department carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal agreeing with the view of the CIT(A) held that the provision for bonus made being the Revenue charge, the non-allowance would result to computation of income which is not real, and, therefore, the assessee was justified in claiming the provision for bonus for a sum of Rs. The Department carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal agreeing with the view of the CIT(A) held that the provision for bonus made being the Revenue charge, the non-allowance would result to computation of income which is not real, and, therefore, the assessee was justified in claiming the provision for bonus for a sum of Rs. 44, 541 made in its account as a deductible item. 4. The Revenue has challenged the order of the Tribunal on the question of law set out earlier referred to. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the assessee had been claiming deduction towards bonus allowance on the basis of the actual payment and it was allowed and it is not permissible for the assessee to make the claim on the basis of the provision for bonus in addition to the claim for deduction of actual payment made by the assessee, and if the claim of the assessee for actual payment and the provision for bonus are allowed, it would distort the income of the assessee and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in allowing both the claims of the assessee. Learned counsel for the assessee supported the order of the Tribunal. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel. The Revenue has not disputed the fact that the assessee was claiming deduction towards the bonus on the basis of actual payment. The business of the assessee was taken over and it ceased to be private sector undertaking and has become public sector during the relevant accounting year for the asst. yr. 1973-74. There is no dispute that the liability towards bonus to its employees has become crystallised in view of the take over of the business of the assessee and to ascertain the real income of the assessee during the accounting year for the asst. yr. 1973-74, the deduction of the provision made for the crystallised liability is reasonable. The fact that the actual bonus paid in accordance with the actual practice adopted by the assessee was allowed would not prevent in any way the assessee from claiming the deduction towards the provision for the actual liability that arose during the accounting year and without the liability being determined and allowed in the computation of the income of the assessee, it would not be possible to arrive at the real income of the assessee. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal was correct in holding that the provision made by the assessee was a revenue charge and once it is held to be revenue charge, the non-allowance or disallowance of the same would distort the computation of business income of the assessee. We have held that the allowance of actual payment would not prevent the assessee from claiming deduction as it cannot be said that there was a double deduction as the double deduction postulates the deduction of the same amount and it cannot be said that the assessee is claiming double deduction of the same amount one by way of actual payment and another by way of provision for bonus. The assessee made a provision for the bonus in addition to the actual payment on the ground the liability had accrued to the assessee during the accounting year as it happened to be last accounting year of the assessee's business and therefore, in our opinion, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of the actual payments made as well as provisions for bonus made during the accounting year. We are, therefore, of the opinion that both the CIT as well as the Tribunal have come to the correct conclusion in holding that the provision for bonus should be allowed as deduction in computing the total income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. 6. Accordingly, we answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The assessee is entitled to costs of Rs. 750.