All these four appeals by Revenue are directed against CIT(A)'s common order dt. 1st Oct., 1983, relating to asst. yrs. 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1981-82. Since common issue involved is whether sum of Rs. 4,800, Rs. 11,310, Rs. 11,228 and Rs. 12,318 being remuneration received by assessee's husband from firm M/s Lakshman Rolling Mills, in which assessee was partner are liable to be included in assessments of assessee in respective assessment years under s. 64(1)(ii) of IT Act. appellant derives income from firm M/s. Lakshmnan Rolling Mills having 15 per cent share. husband of assessee, namely, Shri Nirmal Kumar Jain is said to be employee of firm and was getting income from salary and bonus. ITO observed that above sums were liable to be included in income of assessee under s. 64 (1) (ii) for reason that assessee's husband did not possess any technical or professional qualification, but he only worked as Dalal. On appeal, CIT(A) reversed order of ITO and accordingly feeling aggrieved by order of CIT (A), Department has preferred appeals before us. Ld. Departmental Representative contended before us that husband of assessee had not acquired sufficient business experience and he had no technical or professional qualification and mere experience in Dalali business cannot be termed that he had sufficient and reasonable professional qualification and remuneration paid to him by firm should not be clubbed with income of assessee. It was further contended by departmental representative that husband of assessee had no experience and technical qualifications in regard to rolling mills, therefore, CIT (A) was not justified in holding that provisions of s. 64(i)(ii) were not attracted and clubbing made was not correct. departmental representative relied upon order of Tribunal dt. 11th March, 1986 in ITA No. 1687 (Alld)/1983, wherein income of husband was clubbed in hands of wife under s. 64(1) (ii). But he further contended that this Bench of Tribunal vide its decision dt. 16th April, 1986 in I.T.A.No. 1686 (Alld)/1983 had taken different view. It was further mentioned that there is no evidence to establish that husband of assessee possessed technical qualification. He placed reliance on following decisions: (1) Smt. Muniz Fatima vs. ITO (1983) 17 TTJ (All) 319: (1983) 5 ITD 183 (All) (2) CIT. Karnataka vs. D. Rajagopal (1984) 41 CTR (Kar) 5: (1985) 154 ITR 375 (Kar) and (3) Smt. Kamlabai Gujri vs. CIT (1985) 47 CTR (MP) 62: (1986) 157 ITR 32 (MP). It was next contended that AAC had placed reliance against order of CIT (A) for asst. yr. 1980-81 and as matter of fact revenue was involved small amount of therefore, no quantum appeal was preferred by Department. On other hand, authorised representative for assessee filed paper-book before us containing 20 pages. According to authorised representative for assessee husband of assessee explained before ITO vide its reply dt. 4th March, 1982 that provisions of s. 64(1)(ii) were not applicable in this case as husband of assessee possessed requisite experience, technical know-how and remuneration paid to him as matter of fact was less than what he was earning. It was next contended that Shri Nirmal Kr. Jain was aged about 52 years and had been carrying on Dalali business in iron etc. for long time and had been assessed to tax at, Rs. 24,000 from asst. yr. 1975-76. Proceeding further, he referred to proviso to sub-s. (ii) of s. 64(1), which reads as under: "Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply in relation to any income arising to spouse where spouse possesses technical or profession qualifications and income is solely attributable to application of his or her technical or professional knowledge and experience: ITO, according to A.R. ignored this clear cut provision and he incorrectly clubbed disputed income in hands of assessee. It was next contended that CIT(A) in case of firm of M/s. Shri Lakshman Rolling Mills for asst. yr. 1980-81 vide his order dt. 25th Aug., 1981 held that husband of assessee had knowledge in Dalali business for long time and sufficient experience and salary was given by firm. He, therefore on facts and circumstances of case contended that addition was rightly deleted by CIT (A) and order passed by CIT (A) is perfectly in order. It was next contended that CIT (A) had not dealt with technical/professional qualification and had also not considered explanation of assessee given on page 19 of assessee's paper-book. authorised representative for assessee had also placed reliance on paper No. 13 to 15, whereby it was held that clubbing in hands of assessee's husband was not correct and same was deleted. In reply, Senior departmental representative had placed reliance is decision in case of Smt. Muniz Fatima vs. ITO (1983) 17 TTJ (All) 319: (1983) 5 ITD 183 (All). authorised representative at page 19 filed copy of order of Tribunal in case of Suryakumar vs. ITO reported in (1982) 31 CTR (Trib). 29 (Hyd.). In this case, it was held that husband of assessee had sufficient experience and case fell within provisions of s. 64(1)(ii) as elucidated by Special Bench of Tribunal, Bombay in I.T.A. No. 2272/Bom/1979 for asst. yr. 1978-79 in case of Dr. J.M. Mokashi, Thana ITO 'B' Wasrd, Thana (order dt. 20th July, 1981). We have considered submission of parties and have gone through paper-book and case laws cited by either parties. It is not disputed that husband of assessee received remuneration as mentioned above in all four assessment years under appeal from firm M/s Lakshman Rolling Mills. remuneration had been stated as commission income received from said firm. ITO in its order mentioned that issue in controversy was never concluded in favour of assessee and Shri Nirmal Kr. Jain, husband of assessee did not possess any technical and professional experience in this trade, therefore, amount paid to him was includible under s. 64(1)(ii) of Act. AAC in para 2 of its order found that husband of assessee was engaged in Dalali of iron and steel goods for number of years and he had been assessed to tax and he was employee of firm for looking after work of sales and purchases in which trade he had experience of number of years and developed professional experience. He also placed reliance on order of CIT(A)-II, Kanpur dt. 25th Sept.,1981, wherein it was held that Shri Nirmal Kr. Jain had sufficient technical experience in this line. Following decision of CIT (A) (supra), he deleted addition made by ITO. Special Bench of Tribunal in ITA No. 2272/Bom/1979 for asst. yr. 1978-79 in case of D r . J.M. Mokashi (order dt. 20th July, 1981) held that term professional qualification means fitness to job or undertake occupation or vocation requiring manual skill as controlled by intellectual skill and which is such that requiring manual skill as controlled by intellectual skill and which is such that person should be able to make out living therefrom independently. It was further held that experience referred to in provision included experience acquired in course of acquiring technical of professional qualification. special Bench held that word 'and' appearing twice in provision to s. 64(1)(ii) meant 'and' and not 'or' as contended by ld. Departmental representative before him. In instant case, assessee's husband worked in Dalali business. contention of departmental representative is that assessee was running rolling mill and assessee had neither experience in this line nor he had any technical qualification. Therefore, husband of assessee did not possess any technical or professional knowledge by virtue of experience in this line and income is solely attributable to application of said knowledge and experience and as such requirement of section for application of proviso to sub-s. 64(1)(ii) is not satisfied. Their Lordships of Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Batta Kalyani vs. CIT (1985) 46 CTR (AP) 45: (1985) 154 ITR 59 (A.P.) held as under: "The words "technical or professional qualifications" occurring in first part of proviso to s. 64(1)(ii) of I.T. Act, 1961, do not necessarily relate to technical or professional qualifications acquired by obtaining certificate, diploma or degree or in any other form from recognised body like university or institute. That this was intention of Legislature is clear from use of expression "knowledge and experience" in latter part of proviso, as otherwise it would have been permissible for Legislature to use same expression as occurring in first part of proviso to s. 64(1)(ii). harmonious construction of two parts of proviso shows that if person possesses technical or professional knowledge and income is solely attributable to application of such technical or professional knowledge and experience, requirement for application of proviso is satisfied, although person concerned may not possess any qualification issued by recognised body". Thus, their Lordships of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court held that technical or professional qualification occurring in first part of proviso to s. 64(1)(ii) of IT Act do not relate to technical or professional qualifications acquired by obtaining certificate or diploma or degree or in any other form from recognised body like University or Institute. If person possesses technical or professional knowledge by virtue of experience in line and income is solely attributed to application of said knowledge and experience, requirement for application of proviso to sub-s. 64(1)(ii) is satisfied, although person concerned may not possess any qualification issued by recognised body. In this instant case, husband of assessee had no experience about nature of business of firm i.e. running of rolling mills. husband of assessee was allowed salary on ground that he had dalali experience and by virtue of this experience in this line income was solely attributable to said knowledge and experience and it come within ambit of proviso to s. 64(1)(ii). assessee is engaged in running of rolling mills and there is no evidence to show that husband of assessee did possess technical, professional qualifications for running of rolling mills. However, experience of dalai is not enough as main job of rolling mills is something otherwise and there is no iota of evidence to prove said experience, etc. We, therefore, hold that order of AAC is not correct and AAC was not justified in allowing salary under s. 64 (1)(ii). order of AAC is hereby reversed and that of ITO is restored. In result, appeals are allowed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. SMT. MAINA SUNDERI JAIN