Since certain common grounds were raised in these two cross appeals one each by assessee and Revenue, both were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order for sake of convenience. First ground in assessee's appeal and ground No. 3 in Revenue's appeal are in respect of disallowance on account of entertainment. facts in background of issue are in short compass. In Delhi office assessee had debited sum of Rs. 58,856 on account of expenses incurred on gifts to foreigners or on visits of foreign delegation. ITO allowed only sum of Rs. 5,000 out of these expenses and disallowed Rs. 53,856. When matter came before CIT (A), he granted further relief of Rs. 13,856. action of CIT (A) in disallowing Rs. 40,000 and granting relief of 13,856 left both assessee and revenue aggrieved. assessee in its appeal has disputed disallowance of Rs. 40,000 and Revenue in its cross-appeal has disputed relief of Rs. 13,856. Id. Counsel for assessee Mr. Subhash Aggarwal submitted that identical issue had been before tribunal for asst. yr. 1980-81 wherein only addition of Rs. 8,964 was sustained and in light of said finding of tribunal, at most some disallowance can be sustained though, according to him, entire expense was on account of gifts to foreigners and on visits of foreign delegations. He drew our attention to pages 8 and 9 of paper-book giving comparative chart and total details of expenses with bifurcation. ld. Senior Departmental representative, Mr. R.K. Bali, on other hand submitted that these were entertainment expenses and should not have been allowed. After taking into consideration rival submissions, looking to facts in background and going through our decision pertaining to asst. yr. 1980-81, we had occasion to deal with this very issue at length in paras 11 to 16 of our order and following our earlier decision in said case of H.M.M. Ltd., we sustained disallowance only of Rs. 8,964. For very same reasons given therein, as there is no difference in facts, we order sustenance of disallowance in sum of Rs. 9,000 for this year also. assessee, therefore, further gets relief of Rs. 31,000 whereas revenue fails on its ground of appeal. second ground in assessee's appeal in very interesting because it pertains to his wife's expense on foreign tour who accompanied him on foreign trip. ld. counsel for assessee submitted on as earlier hearing that assessee's wife was qualified nurse and on strength of cases on CIT vs. T.S. Hajee Moosa & Co (1985) 153 ITR 422 (Mad) and Bombay Mineral Supply Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT (1985) 153 ITR 437(Guj). He claimed that no disallowance was warranted. He also submitted that it was as per medical advise that she was taken abroad. On last hearing when this case was fixed he was asked to file affidavit or proof to fact that Mrs Sadhana Aggarwal wife of assessee is qualified nurse. Since on hearing on 2nd April, 1986, he came with affidavit to that effect, he very forcefully pleased before us that no disallowance is warranted on this account. He submitted that one of observations of High Court was that expenditure in case should not be allowed because wife was not nurse. Since in instant case she was nurse it should be allowed. ld. senior departmental representative, on other hand pointed out from one of two decisions in (1985) 153 ITR 422 (Mad) that there is observation of High Court that even if she is nurse, it cannot be allowed. To this immediately came submission, in rejoinder, from ld. counsel for assessee that at most it becomes question of two opinions and in light of Kullu Valley Tpt. Co (1970) 77 ITR 518 (SC) and CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. 1973 CTR (SC) 177: (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) opinion favouring subject is to be followed. ld. sr departmental representative on other hand submitted that even if two opinion are there in light of case of Nand Lal Sohan Lal vs. CIT 1978 CTR (P&H) 5 FB: (1977)110 ITR 170 (P&H) (FB), it could not help assessee. In alternative ld. counsel for Revenue also submitted that since affidavit is placed now, matter may go back to file of ITO. After taking into consideration rival submissions and looking to facts that assessee's wife is qualified nurse, we are constrained to reverse finding of CIT (A) in disallowing sum spent on her foreign trip in sum of Rs. 17,179. ld. counsel for assessee had also shown medical certificate from well-placed doctor that assessee has been suffering from heart trouble and in addition he placed following affidavit from Mrs. Sadhana Aggarwal, wife of Mr. Ved Parkash Aggarwal assessee: " That I have completed my General Nursing Diploma (Training) in Irwin college New Delhi in year 1957. That I have completed my Midwifery course from Lady Hardings College in year 1958" We would have ordinarily sent matter back to file of ITO but since affidavit was placed before us on our asking and it is affidavit from lady and that too wife of big assessee, we are sure she would never take risk of giving false affidavit, consequences of which are wellknown in case is it proved to be false. Once there is no controversy about fact that assessee was heart patient and his wife is qualified nurse, only thing which remains for us is application of case law on issue. Undoubtedly, in one of very old cases of State of Madras vs. G.J. Coelho (1964) 53 ITR 186 (SC) while dealing with the" personal expense" it was observed by their Lordship that same would include only expenses on person of assessee or to satisfy his personal needs such as clothes, food etc. Actually in said case personal things are not given in restricted form but in illustrative form. Its finding even says that personal expenses would include expenses on person of assessee, which is bound to take into consideration on health of assessee. Then their lordships of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Hajee Moosa & Co. (1985) 153 ITR 422 at 427 (Mad) observed that: "... it was held that need of managing director of assessee- company to have services of his wife who was not qualified or trained nurse, either to attend on him for his indifferent health or to prepare food for him would not entitle assessee company to claim proportional expenses as business expenses. In this case also it does not appear that wife of partner of assessee. Who undertook foreign tour with partner of assessee was qualified or trained as nurse. ..." Upto these observations ld. counsel for assessee had relied on said case. But further, it was added by their Lordships in said case: ".... or even if she was it would not have made any difference to claim for deduction made by assessee, for wife of partner who accompanied her husband on foreign tour did so only with view to look after him so that he may not be deprived of company of wife while on such foreign tour, which she would have done, even otherwise, if he had stayed at home." Out of subsequent observations it was effort of ld. departmental representative that even if assessee's wife was nurse it should not be allowed. But then we have Gujarat High Court decision in Bombay Mineral Supply Co P. Ltd vs. CIT (1985) 153 ITR 437 (Guj) in which their Lordships at p. 437 of report have observed as under immediately after quoting observation from State of Madras vs. G.T. Coelho (1964) 53 ITR 186 (SC): " In our opinion need of managing director of assessee- company to have services of his wife who was not qualified or trained one either to attend on him for his indifferent health or to prepare food for him since he happened to be strict vegetarian would not entitle assessee company to claim proportionate expenses as business expenses." When we go through these two decisions that of Madras and Gujarat High Court and look to fact that assessee's wife in instant case was qualified nurse and assessee was sick person we find that as per Gujarat High Court decisions, i.e. opinion of Court judge, support contention of assessee whereas in Madras High Court it is only obitor which supports contention of Revenue. Even for sake of arguments if both are equated undoubtedly, it becomes matter of two opinions and as per our consistent view we follow finding which supports contention that of assessee. Besides our consistent view we are also fortified by CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. 1973 CTR (SC) 177:(1973)88 ITR 192 (SC) CIT vs. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. (1970) 77 ITR 518 (SC) and CIT vs. Vadde Pullaiah & Co (1973) 89 ITR 240 (SC). Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in Nand Lal Sohanlal vs. CIT 1978 CTR (P&H) 5 (FB) about opinion, which was relied u p o n by ld. senior departmental representative cannot be fatal to assessee's case in light of SC decision. Before we part with issue, we may mention that tribunal is known for informal natural and fast justice and as observed above, we have accepted affidavit on its fact value as it is given by respectable lady and presented by advocate, who can face music at any stage, if it is proved be false. contention of assessee, therefore raised in its appeal is accepted. first ground for our consideration in Revenue's appeal pertains to non-charging of interest from M/s Vee Pee Wool Syndicate. Identical issue had been before tribunal in immediately preceding year and it was that order which was followed by CIT(A) and since in Revenue's appeal for immediately preceding year, we had confirmed finding of CIT(A) and apparently on basis of undisputed fact's that there were two accounts of same person, for very same reasons given therein we confirm his finding. There is no dispute about fact that there was opening balance in said account of M/s Vee pee Wool Syndicate and interest disallowed for 1980-81 was deleted by CIT (A), which was accepted by Revenue. There is no controversy about fact that during year under consideration no borrowings were made on which interest could be disallowed and since in past outstanding was there which came to be opening balance for year under consideration in light of above facts and for reasons given by CIT (A), his action is hereby confirmed. only ground which now survives for our consideration is deletion of Rs. 71,521 made on account of commission payment to M/s Vee Pee Wool Syndicate. At very outset learned counsel for assessee submitted that it is covered issue but attempt of ld. senior departmental representative was that there is no proof regarding rendering of services during year under consideration and he wanted to persuade us to have different view. When papers placed before us in form of certificates from Prabhat Woollen Mills Sind Knitwears (P) Ltd., Nagesh Hosiery Mills, Kohinoor Woollen Mills, Ludhiana Wool Syndicate, Modella Woollens Ltd., Wellman (Hindustan) Pvt. Ltd., Amritsar Worsted spinners, Bombay Fibre Industries Ltd etc., are looked in detail in our earlier order, we find that issue is covered on all fours. There is no difference either in facts or in arguments of both parties. action of CIT (A) is in conformity with tribunal's decision pertaining to s s t. yr. 1980-81. As such this ground in Revenue's appeal is also dismissed. In result, assessee's appeal is party allowed and that of Revenue is dismissed. *** VED PARKASH AGGARWAL v. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ASST.)