only dispute raised in this appeal, preferred by revenue, is regarding disallowance of interest under section 40[b] of Income tax Act, 1961 ['the Act']. 2. There is no controversy about fact that Shri Yoginder Mohan, was partner in his representative capacity of HUF and there was account of Yoginder Mohan HUF itself, on which interest of Rs. 5,577 was paid and added b y ITO. When issue came before AAC, he relying on certain Tribunals decision in IT Appeal No. 701 [Chd.] of 1982, dated 19-9-1984 and IT Appeal Nos. 1011 and 1012 [Chd.] of 1979 accepted assessee's appeal. 3. In those decisions, tribunal had actually relied on Gujarat High court decision in case of CIT v. Sajjanraj Divanchand  126 ITR 654. But subsequently as said decision was overruled by Full Bench of same High court in case of Chhotalal and Co. v. CIT  150 ITR 276, action of AAC was reversed and Tribunal had allowed revenue's appeal on 23-2-1985. Subsequently because there was Miscellaneous Petition No. 43 [Chd.] of 1985 from assessee that this being ticklish issue, matter may be heard by Division Bench Tribunal was reviewing its earlier decision and said petition having not been placed before Bench by that time, earlier order of Tribunal was recalled and matter was posted for rehearing before Division Bench vide order dated 12-7-1985 in Miscellaneous petition No. 43 [Chd.] of 1985 when detailed arguments and citations came forward from both sides. 4. learned counsel for assessee Mr. K. P. Bajaj, submitted that issue is covered by consistent view of Tribunal and by Gujarat High court decision. Even on basis of two views theory, assessee's contention could have been allowed. However, learned counsel for assessee was fair enough to say that Shri Yoginder Mohan was partner in capacity of HUF representative and account on which interest was paid also belonged to Yoginder Mohan HUF. learned departmental representative, Mr. M. P. Singh, on other hand, relied on cases of CIT v. London Machinery Co.  117 ITR 111 [All.] and Dwarkadas Rameshwar Goenka v. CIT  127 ITR 397 [Mad.] and even earlier decision of Tribunal in case of Ganesh Factory [sic]. He even went to extent of saying that since there are two views on similar grounds order against revenue is perverse. He, however, drew our attention to Andhra Pradesh High court decision in case of N. T. R. 's Estate v. CIT  22 TAXMAN 194, in which Explanation added to section 10 of Taxation Laws [Amendment] Act, 1984, had been considered as procedural and retrospective. 5. After taking into consideration rival submission and looking to fact that it was Gujarat High Court decision in Sajjanraj Divanchand's case [supra] which was relied upon by this Tribunal in its earlier decision in IT Appeal No. 701 (Chd.) of 1982 dated 19-9-1984 and yet earlier decisions which were followed there in IT Appeal Nos. 1011 and 1012 [Chd.] of 1979 dated 24-7-1981, and since said decision stands overruled by full Bench in Chhotalal and Co.'s case [supra] in which either Lordship observed that: ".... it goes without saying that when he represents HUF interest paid to HUF has to be disallowed and not any interest paid to his individual account... " [p. 287]. revenue's contention has to accepted. Then besides said decision due to lot of controversy on issue and conflict of judicial opinions in different High Court such as Karnataka, Allahabad, Delhi, and Andhra Pradesh in case of N. T. R.'s Estate [supra], their Lordships observed that said Explanation, though is effective from assessment year 1985-86 but it will be treated as applicable to earlier years also. On foot-note of one of our decisions in Jagan Nath Chanan Ram v. ITO  Tax. 78 [6A]-5 [Chd.] we have editorial note that: "This decision is no longer good law in view of Explanation 2 to section 40[b] inserted by Taxation Laws [Amendment] Act, 1984 with effect from 1-4- 1985. amendment has been held to be retrospective by AP High court in N. T. R.'s Estate case reported in May, 1985 issue of Taxation." [p. 5]. Similar editorial note in also given under Allahabad High Court decision in case of CIT v. Chandu Lal Surajpal  Tax. 77-56 which reads as under: "In this case, amendment to section 40[b] made by t he Taxation Laws [Amendment] Act, 1984 with effect from 1-10-1984 does not seem to have noticed though judgment was delivered on 12-10-1984. AP High court in its decision dated 8-10-1984 in R. C. No. 99 of 1979 [N. R. T. Estate v. CIT] reported in Taxation March 1985 issue section iii has taken note of this amendment and held it to be procedural and therefore, retrospective. amendment reverses Allahabad High Court's view... " [p. 57]. Now, we reproduce here below finding of their Lordship of Andhra Pradesh High Court in this regard in N. T. R.'s Estate case [supra]. "6. Having given our anxious consideration to matter in dispute we are inclined to follow judgments of this court in Vallamkonda Chinna Balaiah Chetty & Co.'s case [supra] and Terla Veeraiah's case [surpa] and of Gujarat High Court and Madras High court above referred. facts obtaining in T. Veeraiah's case [supra] were distinguishable and this distinction was duly pointed out by this court in Vallamkonda Chinna Balaiah Chetty & Co.'s case [supra]. We consider that present case in on all fours with facts obtaining in decisions of this court in Vallamkonda Chinna Balaiah Chetty & Co.'s case [supra] and Terla Veeraiah case [supra]. It is true that there is conflict of judicial opinion on this aspect [vide judgments of Karnataka, Allahabad and Delhi High Court above referred on which reliance was placed by learned standing counsel for revenue]. We do not think that any case is made out for reconsideration of judgment of this court in Vallamkonda Chinna Balaiah Chetty & Co. and Terla Veeraiahs case [supra]. Andhra Pradesh for two reasons: firstly, view taken by this court finds support in judgments of Gujarat High court and Madras High court above referred: and secondly, principle enunciated by this court in now statutorily recognised by Taxation Laws [Amendment] Act. 1984, which will be effective from assessment year 1985-86. By section 10 of above Amendment Act, three Explanations were inserted. Explanation 2 and 3 deal with matter under consideration. effect of these Explanations is: [a] if person is partner in firm in representative capacity and if such partner lends to partnership movies belonging to him individually, then interest paid to such partner on movies lent by him is not liable to be added back under section 40[b], and [b ] similarly, if person is partner in his individual capacity and if such partner lends to partnership movies belonging to Hindu joint family, of which he is 'karta', then interest paid on moneys lent by joint family is not liable to be added back under section 40[b]. above amendment to statue is clear acceptance of views expressed by this Courts, Gujarat High Court and Madras High court in decision above referred. It is true that Explanations 2 and 3 inserted by Taxation Laws [Amendment] Act, will be effective from assessment year 1985-86. It is well to bear in mind that, in statement of Objects and Reasons introducing Taxation Laws [Amendment] Bill, 1984 it has been specifically mentioned that amendments introduced in Bill are intended mainly to streamline procedures in interest of better work management, avoid inconvenience to taxpayers, reduce litigation, remove certain anomalies in and rationalise some of provisions of these enactments and counteract tax avoidance and tax evasion. We consider that present amendment to section 40[b] through Explanations 2 and 3 above referred is to avoid inconvenience to taxpayer, reduce litigation and in that view, spirit of Explanations 2 and 3 introduced by Taxation laws [Amendment] Bill should be followed with respect to preceding assessment years also in order to avoid unnecessary litigation. It cannot be gainsaid that Legislature was fully aware of conflict of judicial opinion in this matter among various High Court in country and present amendment to section 40[b] through Explanations 2 and 3 is brought about to set at rest controversy. We see no reason to hold that principle statutorily recognised by Explanations 2 and 3 following decisions of some High Courts, is good only from assessment year 1985-86 and ceased to be so for preceding assessment years. In our opinion, Explanations 2 and 3 are merely clarificatory in character and must, therefore, govern assessments prior to assessment year 1985-86 also. " ["p. 197]. question of two views theory will also not arise once Explanations had to be clarificatory in nature and retrospective, being procedural. So far as our decision in case of Jagan Nath Chanan Ram [supra] is concerned it is dated 28-6-1984, whereas Andhra Pradesh High court decision in case of N. T. R.'s Estate [supra] is dated 8-10-1984. In light of Supreme court decision in case of Godawari Devi Saraf [sic] that once High court decision on particular issue is available and that being only decision, has got to be followed, will not hesitate in reviewing our earlier view and, therefore, though for different reasons, i. e., by applicability of Explanations to section 40[b] which has been held to be procedural and retrospective, action of AAC in this case is reversed. 6. In result, appeal is allowed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. KANHAYA LAL RAMESHWAR DASS & CO.