P (PLP)

1936 I. T. R. 25 (Cal.) referred to An application under section 66 (2) of the Bahawal pur Income Tax Act is made by Muslim Cloth House, Ahmed pur East. Two questions have come up for the consideration of this Court. The first, is whether this application should be heard by a Bench or a single judge. Section 66 (2) reads : "If on any application being made under subsection (1) the Appellate Tribunal refuses to state the case on the ground that no question of law arises, the assessee or the Assistant Commis sioner, as the case may be, may within six months from the date on which he is served with the order of refusal, apply to the High Court, and the High Court may, if it is not satisfied of the correctness of the decision of the Appellate Tribunal require the Appellate Tribunal to state the case ...." On page 1179 of the law of Income Tax in India, by V. S. Sunda Ram it is observed that under subsection (1) of section 66‑A, it is only when a reference has been made that it to be heard by a Bench of not less than two Judges. application under section 66 (2) need‑not necessarily be heal .l by a Bench of not less than two judges. An application for a writ is neither a reference nor an application under section 65(2) and neither the Act nor the rules made under it are applicant to it, which can therefore be heard by a single judge on tile original side. See Ramjedas Mahaliram, 1936 I. T. R. 25(Cal). It all depends upon the Rules of the High Court. Rule 3 of the Rules describing the jurisdiction of a single judge and Bench of this Court reads:‑ "a civil appeal, application or reference under any Act of the Bahawalpur Government other than the Code of Civil Procedure if such appeal, application or reference is not otherwise expressly provided for can be heard by a single judge." Now this a fact that the present is an application under section 60(2) of the Bahawalpur Income Tax Act. It is no where provided in the Rules framed by the High Court that such a petition is to be heard by a Bench of this Court. It is evident therefore that according to Rule 3 referred to above this petition can be heard by a single judge." The second question which was raised is not relevant at the present stage though I would like to refer to that objection casually. It was pointed by the learned Government Advocate, that according to the proviso to section 66‑A(1) of Income Tax Amendment Act, 1950 (Act IV of 1950) the act itself has come to an end because the personnel of the Tribunal referred to in that Act has been changed and that Tribunal has been dissolved. But this question could arise only when a reference under 66‑A(1) is before this Court. I may however state that I have already moved the Government to delete the laste sentence of section 66A(1) of (Act IV of 1950). If the Government fails to accept this suggestion then this question shall be considered at the proper time. The petition is therefore adjourned to be heard oil merits. K. M.A. Question answered.