The petitioner Phukenbari Tea Co (P) Ltd, is engaged in the business of cultivation, sale or green tea leaves. For the assessment year 1992-93 the company submitted its return of agricultural income before the respondent No.3. In the said return the petitioner showed a sum of Rs. 4,37,980.00 as an amount being payable as cess for production of green tea leaves. The Assessing Officer disallowed the said amount on the ground that the said amount was not paid during the relevant financial year although the same became payable. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority also rejected the claim of the petitioner and affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.12.1994. Hence the present petition. 2. I have heard Dr. AK Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt Advocate. 3. In this case, there is no dispute at the bar that the amount of cess on green tea leaves was payable by the petitioner company. The petitioner company is engaged in business in production, sale of green tea leaves only and as such they are not liable to pay income tax but are liable to pay agricultural income tax only. 4. The claim of the petitioner company rejected on the ground that the claim of deduction in respect of unpaid provision is not an allowable deduction either under sections 8 (2) (e) or section 8 (2) (f) (vii) of the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1939 for short 'the Act'. 5. Section 8 (2) (f) (vii) reads as follows : “(vii) Any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning or deriving the agricultural income.” From the above, I find that any accrued liability laid out is an allowable deduction and deduction of payment of cess on green tea leaves is no doubt as accrued liability of the company. Section 8 (2) (e) reads as follows : “(e) any tax, or are paid under any enactment, in force in Assam on the cultivation or sale of the crop from which such agricultural income is derived.” 6. Section 8 (2) (e) reads as follows : “(e) any tax, or are paid under any enactment, in force in Assam on the cultivation or sale of the crop from which such agricultural income is derived.” 6. The Assessing Officer as well as the appellate authority paid emphasis on the word 'paid' and drawing reference to section 43B of the Income Tax Act, held that the tax, duty, cess or fee not paid during the accounting year cannot be allowed to be deducted. Section 43B of the Income Tax Act is very specific and provides that only the tax, duty, cess or fee actually paid in the accounting year shall be computed for deduction. However, there is no such identical provisions in the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act, section 37 of the Act provides for such allowances. 7. It is the case of the petitioner company that they are maintaining their account in the mercantile system'. In the above system of the account on which the cess is payable cannot be considered again and the amount which is paid and received be shown as expenditure. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala vs. Gemini Cashew Sales Corporation LXV ITR 643 the Apex Court held “Where accounts are maintained on the mercantile system, if liability to make the payment has arisen during the time the business is carried out, it may appropriately be regarded as expenditure”. In view of the specific provisions under section 43B of IT Act the meaning of the word 'paid' is clear, ie, the amount actually paid but in absence of any identical provision in the Act and in view of he system of accounting adopted by the petitioner, I find that both the Assessing Officer and Appellate Authority were wrong in disallowing deduction. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 7.4.1993 passed by the Assessing Officer and dated 28.12.1984 passed by the Appellate Authority are set aside. The petitioner company is entitled to claim deduction for the cess payable by them.