Deb, J. - (1.) This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The questions before us are as follows ; " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the claim of the assessee-corupany that the two non-residents with which it was dealing were non-resident brokers and it was, therefore, not liable to be treated as an agent of those two non-residents by virtue of the exemption contained in the proviso to Section 163(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2, Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that profits and gains could be deemed to have accrued or arisen to the non-residents by reason of business connection in India, within the meaning of Section 9(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a consideration of the terms of the contract, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-company was rightly treated by the Income-tax Officer as the agent of the non-resident under Section 163(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? "
(2.) The statement of the case relates to the assessment years 1968-69 to 1970-71. The ITO passed orders under Section 163 of the Act treating the assessee-company as the agents of M/s. Invest Export of East Germany and M/s. Machinio Export of Bulgaria.
(3.) We are, however, no longer concerned with M/s. Machinio Export of Bulgaria in view of the facts stated by the Tribunal in para. 3 of the statement of the case and as submitted before us by the learned counsel for both the parties we reframe question No. 2 by deleting the letter " s " from the word " non-residents " in it and question No. 1 as follows : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that M/s. Invest Export, a non-resident with which the assessee had dealings, was not a non-resident broker and therefore the assessee was liable to be treated as an agent of the said nonresident ? ";