These two Departmental appeals though they are filed for different years involved common question. They are, therefore, disposed of by this single order. Two disputes are involved in these appeals. first ground relates to expenses incurred for electricity and salary chowkidar as deduction in computing assessee income from house property at Athgaon. aforesaid claims were rejected by ITO but on appeal AAC allowed them in addition to normal claims for deduction provided for under s. 24 of IT Act. This has been challenged by Revenue in first ground of appeal before us. We have had occasion to consider similar matter in ITA Nos. 203 & 204 (Gau) of 1983 and following line of reasoning adopted therein we accept Departmental ground to extent that salary of chowkidar cannot be separately allowed as deduction and so far as electricity charges are concerned, matter shall go back to ITO for verification as to whether these charges were part of rent received by him. other dispute relates to interest levied on assessee under s.. 139(8) and 217(1A) of IT Act. ITO did not pass any specific order levying such interest but calculated same at bottom of assessment order. On appeal, AAC was of opinion that mere mechanical computation of interest without informing assessee that such interest was being charged and without giving opportunity to assessee to show-cause for delay in filing of return or for reduction or waiver of interest levied under s. 217 would be contrary to law. This would make r. 117-A(5) of rules redundant. He, therefore, deleted both levies and this has been challenged in second ground of appeals before us. In ITA No. 203 (Gau) of 1983 wherein main contention raised on behalf of Revenue was that no appeal against levy of interest lay to AAC and some authorities, viz., CIT vs. Geeta Ram Kali Ram (1980) 15 CTR (All) 67 (FB): (1980) 121 ITR 708 (All) (FB), CIT vs. Mahabir Parshad & Sons (1980) 17 CTR (Del) 161: (1980) 125 ITR 165 (Del) and Chandra Katha Industries vs. CIT (1982) 29 CTR (All) 317: (1982) 138 ITR 168 (All) were considered by us in that case. Besides that now reference was made by representative of assessee to CIT vs. Karamchand Thapar & Bros. (P) Ltd. (1979) 119 ITR 751 (Cal) for proposition that since assessee had denied his liability to interest altogether, it could appeal against said levy. On other hand, Department has referred to some more authorities, viz., K. B. Stores vs. CIT 1976 CTR (Gau) 20: (1976) 103 ITR 505 (Gau), Singho Mica Mining Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 231 (Cal) and Vineet Talkies vs. CIT (1984) 41 CTR (MP) 130: (1984) 148 ITR 66 (MP) for proposition that no appeal lies against levy of interest either under s. 139(8) or under s. 217 inasmuch as order of ITO in this behalf is not appealable under anyh one of clauses mentioned in s. 246. After carefully considering all authorities on subject we still choose to hold that AAC had jurisdiction to entertain assessee s appeal against levy of interest. reason is that assessee s appeals were not directed against levy of interest alone but related to question of allowance of chowkidar s salary and electricity charges also, so that order as whole was appealable. In such circumstances, besides Delhi High Court authority referred to by assessee s representative in other case, viz., (1980) 17 CTR (Del) 161: (1980) 125 ITR 165 (Del), Madras High Court has also held in case of Rajyam Pictures vs. Addl. CIT, Madras i 1978 CIT (Mad) 319: (1978) 114 ITR 847 (Mad) that order for levying interest would be appealable. latest decision on subject is decision of Patna High Court in case of Bihar State Road Transport Corporation vs. CIT (1984) 43 CTR (Pat) 129 (FB): (1984) 149 ITR 208 (Pat) (FB) in which after considering all relevant authorities on subject, it has been held that where charging of interest under s. 217 forms composite part of assessment order itself and quantum of assessed tax in under challenge, charging of interest under s. 217 cannot be bifurcated and it has to be held to be appealable alongwith assessment matter. We, therefore, hold that appeal to AAC over this matter was competent. Coming to merits of levy, we find that as in earlier case of Basudeo Bowri, ITO has not specifically exercised his discretion for levying interest or refusing to do so. Madhya Pradesh High Court has further observed in case of Vinnet Talkies (supra), that simple interest under s. 217(1A) or under s. 139(8) would follow as matter of course. Therefore, before 217(1A) or under s. 139(8) would follow as matter of course. Therefore, before interest can be waived or reduced, ITO has to apply his mind. If he mechanically charges interest, it should be presumed that he has not waived it. Therefore, in accordance with decision taken earlier in case of Basudeo Bowri we direct that ITO shall pass fresh order keeping in view provisions of rr. 40 and 117A of IT Rules and then pass order levying or refusing to levy or waiving interest or any part thereof. For statistical purpose, both appeals shall be deemed to have been allowed as such. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. KESHARDEO BOWRI