OM PRAKASHM, J. M. This is appeal by assessee for asst. year 1982-83 against order of AAC. assessee is partner in firm M/s Jaipur Printers, M. I. Road, Jaipur, wherefrom he received salary of Rs. 12,600. He also received salary of Rs. 9,600 from Khadi Gram Udyog Sangh, Jaipur, Government body. Thus, total salary of assessee come to Rs. 22,200. He claimed standard deduction of Rs. 4,440 under s. 16(1) against salary income. ITO disallowed standard deduction on ground that there was not relationship of employee and employer, inter alia. In computation of income he assessed salary income of Rs. 22,200. On appeal, AAC took view that salary is possible only when there is relationship of employee and employer, which is only possible as result of contract. He observes that firm, which is not legal person cannot enter into agreement of employee and employer with any partner. AAC brief observes as follows: "..........Since salary derived by partner from partnership firm is not in his capacity as employee and character of such receipts continuous to receive profits from business of profession such income would not be chargeable under head Salaries' and in turn deduction admissible under s. 16 of Act would not be available." Aggrieved, assessee has come up in appeal before Tribunal. I have heard Shri Goyal, ld. Counsel for assessee and Shri Singh, ld. departmental representative. On proposition that salary can be paid to partner and to show that contention of assessee is correct. Shri Goyal relied on (1980) 18 CTR (Trib) 3 (Bom) (Mohamad Ibrahim Shahdad vs. ITO). I have carefully gone through this authority. In this decision also, assessee had share income including salary from firm and he claimed deduction of Rs. 3,040 out of salary income of Rs. 20,400 which he received from firm in which he was partner. ITO took view that salary was not subject to deduction under s. 16 of Act since partner in firm was just like proprietor and was never termed as servant and deduction under s. 16 is allowable only if relationship of master and servant was established. As partner is never servant of firm. ITO held that there was not question of allowing benefit of standard deduction under s. 16(i) claimed by assessee. order of ITO was confirmed by AAC in appeal and, then Bombay Bench A' Camp: Srinagar accepted in contention of assessee on second appeal. facts of instant case agree identical to case of Mohamad Ibrahim Shahdad (supra). Shri Goyal, therefore, argues that (1980) 18 CTR (Trib) 3 (Bom) is squarely applicable to facts of instant case. It is also argued by him that even on reasoning of ITO, standard deduction with regard to salary income of Rs. 9,600 received from Khadi Gram Udyog Sangh, Jaipur, cannot be disallowed, because relationship of employee and employer between assessee and Sangh cannot be disputed. He, therefore, argues that in any case assessee was entitled to standard deduction out of salary income of Rs. 9,600 which was received from Khadi Gram Udyog Sangh of which assessee was employ. On other hand Shri Singh relied on CIT vs. L. W. Russel (1964) 53 ITR 91 (SC), CIT vs. Lakshmipati Singhania (1973) 92 ITR 598 (All), CIT vs. R. M. Chidambaram Pillai, etc. 1977 CTR (SC) 71: (1977) 106 ITR 292 (SC) and sardar Arjunsingh Ahluwalia vs. CIT (1979) 13 CTR (MP) 142: (1980) 124 ITR 347 (MP). argument of Shri Singh is that concept o salaries relevant only when there is relationship of master and servant and of employee and employer. He say that partner cannot be servant of firm and, therefore, question of paying salary by firm to partner does not arise and when there is no salary by firm to partner, question of standard to partner, question of standards deduction under s. 16(i) does not arise. No direct authority has been given by Revenue to support its contention. Bombay Bench A' in case of Mohamad Ibrahim Shahdad adverted to s. 67, which lays down method of computing partner's income share in income share in income of firm, s. 67(1) and cl.(a), so far as relevant, read thus: "67. (1) In computing total income of assessee who is partner of firm, whether net result of computation of total income of firm is profit or loss, his share (whether net profit or net loss) shall be computed as follows: (a) any interest, salary, commission or other remuneration paid to any partner in respect of previous year............" Adverting to s. 67(1) Bombay Bench A' took view that salary can b e paid by firm to partner and, therefore, s. 67(1)(a) refer to word Salary'. Similar conclusion can be drawn from reading of s. 40(b) which, in short, declares that any payment of interest, salary, bonus, commission or remuneration made by firm to any partner will not be allowed as deduction. argument of Shri Goyal is that if no salary can be paid at all by firm to partner, then there was no need for legislature to prohibit deduction of salary under s. 40(b) and also there was no need to compute income of partner including salary under cl. (a) of s. 67(1). In short, argument of Shri Goyal is that provisions as contained in s. 67(i)(a) and s. 40(b) clearly postulate that salary can be paid by firm to partner, therefore, legislature prohibited deduction of salary under s. 40(b) and specifically stated in s. 67(1)(a) that while computing income of partner, salary paid to partner has to be taken into computation of his total income. If legally salary cannot be paid to partner by firm, Shri Goyal says there in that case, there was no need for legislature to enact s. 40(b) and s. 67(1)(a) so far as they refer to Salary'. Be that as it may, on fact and circumstances of case, it is amply clear that decision of Bombay Bench A' Camp, Srinagar, as pronounced in case of Mohamad Ibrahim Shahdad (supra), is clearly applicable to instant case and following said authority, I hold that assessee is entitled to standard deduction of Rs. 4,440 under s. 16(i). In result, appeal is allowed. *** CHHITERMAL GOYAL v. INCOME TAX OFFICER