assessee Smt. D. Sampathdevi is engaged in business of pawn- broking and petrol bunk business. For relevant asst. yr. 1980-81 under appeal, for which previous year ended on 31st March, 1980, she claimed expenditure of Rs. 12,000 as salary paid to her husband for managing affairs of business. ITO disallowed this claim stating that assessee s husband is not in any way technically qualified person, that business has been carried on in past for number of years without his assistance and therefore, there was no justification for employing assessee s husband at such salary. When matter was carried in appeal by assessee to AAC, latter upheld action of ITO and dismissed assessee s appeal. AAC noted contentions of assessee before him that assessee being lady requires person for proper and efficient conduct of business, that her husband Shri D. Dharmichand Sowcar has rich experience in pawn-broking and petrol bunk business having been with his father, who was running pawn-broking and petrol bunk business for number of years and that he was having requisite knowledge and experience over twenty years in this line. It was also contention of assessee before him that nature of business is such that it calls for skill and knowledge with experience to tackle problems and meeting with legal requirements under pawn-broking, etc. nature of service rendered was also indicated as set out in his order. AAC after considering provisions of s. 64(1)(ii) and its proviso has held that proviso exempts from mischief of s. 64(2) only cases where spouse possesses technical or professional qualification and income is solely attributable to application of person s technical or professional knowledge and experience. According to him business does not call for any "technical and professional qualification." It is therefore held that assessee has not produced enough evidence to prove that case fall within exemption proviso. Aggrieved by his order, assessee is in further appeal. contention of ld. Representative for assessee in first place is that provisions of s. 64(1)(ii) are not attracted to case of proprietary business. According to him use of expression "concern" in which individual has substantial interest denotes not proprietary concern, but one like partnership or concern in which individual has got substantial interest as defined in Explanation 2. It does not take in, according to him, proprietary concern of individual. It is further pointed out that similar expression "substantial interest" also appears in s. 40A(2), Explanation. According to definition of substantial interest in both sections, person is said to have substantial interest in business wherein it is carried on by company, person is beneficial owner of shares carrying not less than 20per cent voting power and in any other case his beneficial interest is not less than 20 per cent of profit of business. It is also pointed out that according to s. 40A(2), remuneration paid to relative of individual carrying on business is admissible deduction except to extent it is found to be excessive or unreasonable having regard to fair market value of services for which payment is made and legitimate needs of business or benefits derived therefrom. Secondly it is argued that husband of assessee should be held to possess requisite technical qualification and experience and therefore remuneration should be held to fall within provision of s. 64(1)(i) of IT Act. ld. Departmental Representative in reply contended that s. 40A(2) is not attracted to facts in this case, but only s. 64(1)(ii) which is special provision concerned with payment of remuneration to spouse. With regard to question as to whether assessee s husband could be said to have technical or professional qualification and experience, he referred to and relied on decision of Tribunal in case of Smt. Uniz Fatima vs. ITO (1983) 5 ITD 183 (All). On consideration of facts and contention of parties, we find that assessee s contention has merit. qualification and experience as stated in order of AAC possessed by assessee s husband and fact that he had rendered services to assessee s business are not disputed on behalf of Department. only objection is that assessee s husband does not possess technical qualification or experience as envisaged in proviso to s. 64(1) and therefore remuneration paid to him is to be disallowed. In first place, it appears to us that there is apparent conflict between provisions of s. 40A(2) and s. 64(1)(ii). Though s. 40A(2) is concerned with deduction or allowance of expenditure in computing profits and gains of business and s. 64(1)(ii) is concerned with inclusion of income of spouse in individual s income carrying on business in case like present one they impeach on same filed and apparent contradict each other. According to s. 40A(2) any expenditure by way of remuneration paid for services to relative of assessee, which includes spouses as in present case, who is engaged in business is prohibited from deduction in computing profits only to extent it is found to be excessive or unreasonable having regard to test laid down therein but under s. 64(1)(ii) and such expenditure is required to be added back to income of such individual as per provisions of s. 64(1)(ii) expect where it is found to be attributable solely to application of spouse s technical or professional knowledge or experience. learned representative for assessee is perhaps right in his contention that proper course for disallowing expenditure paid to spouse by individual should be s. 40A(2). It also appears that two cannot be harmoniously construed because test for allowance of expenditure by way of remuneration paid for services to spouse of individual carrying on business under two sections are difference. Under s. 40A(2) tests laid dose are fair market value of facility or services for which payment is made or legitimate needs of business or benefit derived by such services, whereas under s. 64 test for adding back expenditure representing income of recipient spouse is that which arises from application of his technical or professional knowledge. argument of Departmental Representative that s. 64(1)(ii) must govern case as being special provision may be sound or justified where there is general provision with regard to allowance of such expenditure and special provision concerning specified item or kind of expenditure and provided there is no apparent conflict with regard to subject matter dealt with. However, it is not necessary for us to pursue this kind thought further because we are satisfied that even assuming that provisions of s. 64(1)(ii) being special provision governing assessee s case before us should prevail, we are unable to accept Department s contention that income derived by spouse is not attributable to spouse s professional or technical knowledge and experience. Special Bench decision of Tribunal in Dr. J. N. Mokashi vs. ITO (1983) 3 ITD 774 (Bom)(SB) has considered this question exhaustively. This decision incidentally negatives contention of assessee that concern referred to in s. 64(1)(ii) does not refer to business in which individual has cent per cent interest. However, according to this decision, professional qualification means fitness to do job or undertake occupation or vocation requiring intellectual skill or requiring manual skill as controlled by intellectual skill and should be such that person should be able to take out living there from independently though salary does not cease to be product of professional skill merely because particular employment is accepted and term "technical" implies specialised knowledge generally of mechanical or scientific subject or of any particular subject. "Experience" as appearing in proviso to s. 64(1)(ii) is held to include experience acquired in course of acquiring technical or professional qualifications. If we apply these test to present case, it is obvious to us that assessee s husband has acquired by his experience and knowledge obtained through experience of past several years professional qualification in sense that he is fit to undertake job of naming pawn-broking and petrol bunk business and his remuneration does not cease to be product of professional skill merely because he is remunerated for his employment. His experience fits in with tests laid down in Special Bench decision and findings of facts not disputed by Departmental Representative clearly support conclusion that remuneration received by assessee s husband is referable or attributable to application of his technical or professional knowledge and experience. case relied on by Departmental Representative in (1983) 5 ITD 183 (All) (supra) in our view is distinguishable and does not support Department s stand. We, therefore, uphold assessee s contention and delete addition made by ITO. appeal is allowed. *** SMT. D. SAMPATHDEVI v. SIXTH INCOME TAX OFFICER