- (1.)The following questions of law are referred to us under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Calcutta :
" (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of the partnership deed dated February 25, 1953, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding :

(a) that Smt. Tribeni Debi was a partner in a representative capacity;

(b) that the minor, Sri Gobindratn Bajaj, was not made a full-fledged partner who had been made liable for losses also;

(c) that Smt. Tribeni Debi was not a partner in a dual capacity and as such the deed of partnership was not invalid;

(d) that Smt. Tribeni Debi and her minor son, Sri Gobindram Bajaj, had not been made partners jointly and that their individual shares were not required to be specified ?

(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee-firm constituted under the deed of partnership dated February 25, 1953, was entitled to registration and in setting aside the order of the Commissioner under Section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?

(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax could in law invoke jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, after the aforesaid Act had been repealed by Section 297 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?"

(2.)So far as the third question is concerned, the matter is now concluded by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 1967 66 ITR 680.
(3.)It has been held by their Lordships that the Commissioner had jurisdiction to issue the notices under Section 33B of the Act of 1922, in view of Section 297(2) of the Act of 1961, and paragraph 4 of the Income-tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1962. It has been further held that Section 297(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, includes within its scope a proceeding under Section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The answer to this question, therefore, must be in the affirmative in that the Commissioner had jurisdiction under Section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to dispose of the matter even after the repeal of the said Act by Section 297(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
;