RAVI MEHTA, A.M. This is departmental appeal wherein following two main grounds of appeal have been urged: "1. On facts and in circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) erred in holding that expenditure of Rs. 25,090 incurred by Mrs Khanna, wife of senior partner of assessee firm on foreign travel constitutes admissible deduction in computation of assessee's total income. On facts and in circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) erred in directing ITO to allow assessee's claim for weighted deduction under s. 35B on expenditure of Rs. 25,090 incurred by Mrs Khanna, wife of senior partner of assessee firm on foreign travel." respondent in this case is reputed firm of Chartered Accountants having offices at Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, and New Delhi. firm also represents in India internationally renowned accounting firm, viz., M/s Peat marwick Mitchell & Co. aforesaid international accounting firm has associates in countries all over world. As result of its association with M/s Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co. respondent receives substantial amount of professional work in form of clients, educational facilities, literature and training of their staff from this foreign firm. senior partner of respondent firm have been invited from time to time to attend meetings alongwith Chartered Accountants from other parts of world. During year under appeal meeting of associates was organised in U.K. and attended by senior partner of firm Mr. R.C. Khanna alongwith his wife. ITO duly allowed claim for deduction in respect of expenses of Mr. R.C. Khanna and also claim under s. 35B. He, however, treated sum of Rs. 25,090 incurred on travelling expenses of Mrs. Khanna as personal expenditure and disallowed same. According to ITO claim for deduction was not allowable on following grounds: "(i) That invitation was addressed to senior partner only in respect of partners' conference to be held in London and Birmingham. It was only as matter of courtesy that invitation was extended to his wife, and (ii) In application for foreign exchange to Reserve Bank of India respondent firm stated that "the primary purpose of visit of Mr. Khanna is to attend meeting of associate firm Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co. at which partners and their wives from different countries are likely to be present. Opportunity is also being taken to combine with this trip visit to numerous clients in U.K. & Europe." ITO ultimately came to conclusion, that as no intimate connection had been established between expenditure incurred on wife of senior partner and business of firm, expenditure could not be allowed. He also held that nexus between expenditure for partner's wife to attend highly specialised Chartered Accountant's conference and further travel to Europe to meet clients of firm in which her husband was partner, had not been established. matter went up in appeal before CIT(A) and it was urged on behalf of respondent firm as under: (i) That senior partners of this firm had been invited from time to time in meetings outside India of various associates of international firm whom they represented in in India. (ii) presence of wives makes social contracts easier and this leads to lot of advantage in business of firm, and (iii) that in application to Reserve Bank of India for foreign exchange it was mentioned that primary purpose of visit of Mr. & Mrs Khanna was to attend meeting of associated firm M/s Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co., in U.K. at which partners and their wives from different countries are likely to be present. ld. CIT(A) allowed expenditure as business expense as well as claim under s. 35B, as according to him "the presence of wives in business claim under s. 35B, as according to him "the presence of wives in business conferences does help in establishing easier social contracts lending to ultimate advantage to business." Before us ld. Departmental Representative urged that claim was not allowable inasmuch as wife of senior partner had no connection with business of assessee which is firm of Chartered accountants doing purely technical work. He also urged that only social contacts can be established b y wives in such conferences and these do not enhance professional prestige and standing of firm. He, accordingly, argued that as expense in question was personal one, it should be disallowed as had been done by ld. ITO. ld. counsel for assessee, on other hand, urged that their s was reputed firm of Chartered Accountants and represented in India one of internationally-renowned accounting firm, viz., M/s Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co. It was further stated that periodical meetings of world wide associates of above firm were held from time to time and it was customary that wives of partners should also accompany them. He further drew our attention to fact that similar trip was undertaken by senior partner Mr. R.C. Khanna and his wife in May, 1979, and aforesaid expenditure was allowed as deduction by Department. This statement at bar was not challenged by Departmental Representative. ld. counsel further submitted that firm is earning substantial amount by way of foreign exchange as result of its association with internationally acclaimed accounting firm. According to him, it is common practice in foreign countries to invite wives to business conference where substantial amount of socialising is done by way of lunches and dinners and in which wives of participants also take active part. According to him several discussions relating to profession do take place even at such informal gatherings where wives are also present. This no doubt enhances personal relationship between persons connected with each other professionally but would also lead to better and increased professional relationship which would ultimately result in substantial work being obtained. This according to counsel of respondent is exactly what has happened. ld. counsel cited two decisions of Tribunal in support of his contentions. first in ITA Nos. 2488 & 2489/Bom/82 in case of XYZ & Co. India Ltd., Bombay vs. ITO reported in Taxes & Planning of 15th July, 1984 and also decision of Hyderabad Bench of Tribunal dt. 30th March, 1981 in case of Bakelite Hylam Ltd. In these appeals Tribunal was considering allowance of expenditure incurred by wives accompany their husbands on official trips outside India. We have considered arguments advanced on both sides and have also perused various documents filed in course of hearing. There is no doubt that respondent firm, as representative of reputed international accounting firm has been able to derive substantial fees. In keeping with practice abroad they have sent their senior partner along with his wife to attend conference which had also been attended by associates from other parts of t h e world along with their wives. technical meetings at aforesaid conferences have also been followed by social gatherings where wives of various participants have also joined in. At such social gatherings personal contacts built up earlier have been further strengthened leading to further cementing of professional relationships. In order to claim deduction it is enough to show that money is expended not of necessity and with view to direct and immediate benefit but voluntarily and on grounds of commercial expediency and in order to indirectly facilitate carrying on of business. In considering whether item is deductible matter has to be looked at from point of view of payer. totality of circumstances have also to be looked into and in present case respondent firm has been assessed at income of Rs. 35,65,020 and claim of Rs. 25,090 forms very negligible proportion thereto. Further respondent firm has earned substantial amount of fees as result of its association with internationally known accounting firm. expenditure o n travelling expenses of wife of senior partner have been necessitated by commercial expediency. We, accordingly, hold that it is admissible deduction and confirm order of CIT(A) on this point. As regards claim under s. 35B on aforesaid expenditure of Rs. 25,090 ld. Departmental Representative did not challenge same and order of CIT(A) on this point is confirmed as well. In view of above, appeal of Department is dismissed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. A.F. FERGUSON & CO.