assessee has income from property. AAC has directed ITO to l l o w salary Chowkidar in computing income from house property. Apparently, above direction of ld. AAC is not supportable in law. There is no provision either under s. 23 or s. 24 whereby Chowkidars salary may be allowed as deduction while computing income from property. ITO has allowed to assessee 6% collection charges. This would take care of salary etc., paid by assessee to Chowkidar. No separate allowance on this account is permissible under law. order of ld. AAC on this point is, accordingly, reversed. Regarding electricity charges, deduction would be permissible not in terms of s. 24 but in terms of s. 23 while working out annual value of property. If assessee can prove by leading cogent evidence that electric charges were being realised by her from her tenants not separately but by way o f rent, said electricity charges would have to be excluded from gross rental receipts to find out annual letting value of property. sum realised for electricity charges from tenants is not part of rent. ITO will give opportunity to assessee to prove, if she can, that rent realised included payment of electricity charges also. If assessee is able to prove aforesaid plea, charges for electricity realised from tenants would be excluded from annual gross rental receipts to arrive at annual value of property. next contention in this appeal is with regard to charging of interest under ss. 139(8) and 217(1A). plea of Revenue is that no appeal by under s. 246 of IT Act, 1961 in respect of charging of interest under ss. 139(8) and 217(1A). aforesaid plea of Revenue is not acceptable. If there are other grounds of appeal, assessee can also challenge levy of interest under ss. 139(8) and 217(1A). We find support for aforesaid stand from following decisions: (i) Rajyam Pictures vs. Addl. CIT Madras I 1978 CTR (Mad) 319: (1978) 114 ITR 847 (Mad); (ii) CIT Delhi II vs. Mahabir Prasad & Sons (1980) 17 CTR (Del) 116: (1980) 125 ITR 165 (Del). decision of Hon ble Gauhati High Court in K.B. Stores vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 503 (Gau) was on different facts. There only issue in appeal was charging of interest. There Lordships stated that no appeal lay against mere charging of interest. decision of Hon ble Gauhati High Court referred to above has been considered by their Lordships of Honbl e Delhi High Court and Madras High Court referred to above. They have interpreted said decision to mean that order levying penal interest is not appealable if that is only ground of appeal. But grievance in this regard can be made if assessment order has been repealed on other points also. Respectfully following aforesaid decisions of Hon ble Delhi and Madras High Courts, we held that ld. AAC was justified in admitting appeal in regard to charging of interest under ss. 139(8) and 217(1A). In result, appeal partly succeeds. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. SMT. DURGA DEVI BAWRI