In this group of four there are cross appeals for asst. yr. 1980-81 and cross objection of assessee for same assessment year and another appeal of assessee for asst. yr. 1981-82. These are conveniently considered together and disposed of by common order. First we take up appeal of Revenue for asst. yr. 1980-81 and cross objection of assessee relating thereto. assessee firm in accounting year ended on 31st March,1980 was mainly engaged in fabrication of telephone poles which were to be supplied to P&T Department. single contention of Revenue relates to that supply contract. It is aggrieved with order of CIT allowing deduction of Rs. 29,191. assessee in its trading account included on credit side sum of Rs. 4,01,141 with following narration: "Estimated enhancement on account of price variation as per term of tender on supplies bill to C.T.S. (P&T)." By taking into account this amount return of income was filed. However, in course of assessment proceedings assessee filed letter dt. 22nd Jan.,1983 before ITO claiming deduction of Rs. 29,191 in respect of t h e amount of Rs. 4,01,141. deduction was claimed on footing of irrecoverability of entire claim. It was explained in paragraph 2 of letter that claim recoverable of Rs. 4,01,141 credited to trading account was on account of price variation clause included in tenders issued by Government, but later on claim was accepted by concerned Department only to extent of Rs. 3,71,949. It is further found by CIT that no bills were sent to P&T Department in respect of estimated amount of Rs. 4,01,141 and enhancement bills for supply made before 31st March,1980 were submitted only for amount of Rs. 3,71,949 after receipt of departmental communication dt. 6th Dec., 1980 and 22nd Dec., 1980. ITO rejected assessee's claim on footing that as accounts were maintained by assessee on mercantile basis claim was valid as on 31st March,1980 and that it was only on 22nd Dec.,1980 at best that it could be said that claim became irrecoverable partly. He finally held that as claim did not pertain to year under assessment it was rejected. CIT(A) accepted assessee's claim for deduction. He noted that there was no question of any recovery becoming bad as bills for estimated amount credited to trading account were never in fact issued so as to create any liability on P&T Department and there was no subsequent revision involved of bills to reduce amount of Rs. 3,71,949. According to him what assessee had claimed was merely rectification of wrong credit because correct credit as per bills admitted by P&T Department should have been Rs. 3,71,949. Revenue has come in appeal to Tribunal. We have heard rival submissions and noted relevant facts above. From facts it is clear that assessee made estimated credit for extra sale price recoverable from P & T Department on poles supplied on account of price variation. No bills even were issued to Department undisputedly and thus action of assessee was totally unilateral. In other words, assessee estimated extra amount which could be claimed due to price variation clause as per term of tender. P&T authorities examined position from their angle and found that price variation clause could be invoked only in respect of supply of 29237 poles and not on 31508 poles as was understanding of assessee. Due to this variation claim of assessee which Postal Department admitted fell to Rs. 3,71,949 and due to this change assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 29,191. It is also undisputed that assessee submitted bill for that amount only. On these facts position that emerges is that assessee unilaterally estimated certain amount of extra price recoverable. There was no accrual of liability in favour of assessee as not even bill had been submitted. Prior to completion of assessment assessee found that its estimate was excessive and P & T Department had correctly worked out amount due to be Rs. 3,71,949. In light of this undisputed position of assessee it, in, facts wanted to substitute correct amount of price due instead of estimated amount. Such change in estimate in our view is clearly open to assessee and it cannot be said that claim of Rs. 4,01,141 accrued to assessee. On better appreciation of facts assessee came forward to offer correct amount due instead of estimated amount. Such course does not violate any principle of mercantile system of accounting. Consequently, we uphold decision of CIT(A) in deleting addition of Rs. 29,191. appeal of Revenue fails and is dismissed. Coming to cross objection of assessee first ground merely wants to support order of CIT(A). This ground is redundant and needs no separate consideration. We have already upheld decision of CIT(A) above. In view of that ground No.2 too does not deserve any consideration. We may also mention in passing that assessee is not justified in asking for any direction for assessment year not under appeal before Tribunal. As both grounds of cross objections are infructuous it is dismissed. Taking next assessee's appeal for asst. yr. 1980-81 it is noticed that only issue raised there in is about charging of interest under s. 139(8) of IT Act. CIT(A) has rejected assessee's ground on this issue by firstly observing that charging to interest under s. 139(8) was not appealable and secondly amendment referred to by assessee's counsel as per taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 was not retrospective and therefore, not applicable to asst. yr. 1980-81. Shri R.C. Khiwani, counsel of assessee, submitted that in view of Supreme Court decision in case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1986) 58 CTR (SC) 112: (1986) 160 ITR 961 (SC) levy of interest under s. 139(8) was appealable as assessee had challenged levy to be unlawful. He also stated that he had challenged levy of interest for some other reasons also which CIT had not noted. After hearing parties, we find that decision of CIT is not correct about levy of interest under s. 139(8) being not appealable, when assessee in fact was denying its liability to such levy. assessee 's stand was that levy was unlawful. Supreme Court decision in Central Provinces Manganese Ore. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1986) 58 CTR (SC) 112: (1986) 160 ITR 961 (SC) supports assessee's stand. Consequently we vacate order of CIT(A) on this point and restore it to his file for fresh disposal after hearing assessee. In result, assessee's appeal may be treated to be allowed, for statistical purposes only. Next is appeal of assessee for asst. yr. 1981-82. Through very lengthy grounds only issue agitated by assessee is about relief admissible to it in respect of disallowance of Rs. 8,597 respect of disallowance of Rs. 8,597 made by ITO out of scooter, car travelling and conveyance expenses of Rs. 34,387. We have heard parties and read relevant paragraph of order of CIT(A). CIT(A) has clearly stated that disallowance of 1/4th would only relate to car expenses amounting to Rs. 15,642 and amount that could b e disallowed would be only Rs. 3,910 as against Rs. 8,597 disallowed by ITO. However, he calculated reduction wrongly at Rs. 1,236. correct relief that should have been allowed would amount to Rs. 4,687. assessee is, therefore, entitled to additional relief of Rs. 3,451. We grant further relief of that amount to assessee. appeal of assessee for asst. yr. 1981-82 succeeds. *** PATHICK ENGINEERING WORKS v. INCOME TAX OFFICER