JUDGMENT : Panigrahi, C.J. - This is an application praying for the issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution on the opposite parties, viz., The President, income tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, the income tax Officer, Special Circle, Cuttack and the income tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench. 2. The facts giving rise to this application are these. The Assessee (Petitioner) claimed a deduction of a sum of Rs. 10542/- paid as interest to one Bai Moni Poddar on the amount borrowed from her and entered in the Assessee's books. There was a difference of opinion between Mr. Gupta and Mr. Chatrath who constituted the Appellate Tribunal, as to whether this sam should be allowed as a deduction to the Assessee. Mr. Gupta was of opinion that the entire amount of interest should be allowed as a revenue deduction while Mr. Chatrath took the contrary view. On account of this, difference of opinion, the matter was referred u/s 5-A(7) of the Indian income tax Act, to a third Member for resolving the difference. The president of the Tribunal, Mr. Shah, beard this matter as the third member in I.T.A. 3106 of 1948-49, and by his order dated the 16th February, 1951, be expressed his agreement with the opinion, of Mr. Gupta in favour of allowing the above sum as a revenue deduction. But instead of following the prescribed procedure, as laid down in Section 5-A(7) Mr. Shah allowed interest at the rate of 8 annas per cent per month instead of 12 annas claimed by the Assessee. I is against this order that the Assessee has come up with this application for a writ of certiorari on the Appellate Tribunal, Bombay. Section 5-A(7) reads as follows: 5-A(7): If the members of a Bench differ in opinion on any point, the point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority if there is a majority, but if the members are equally divided they shall state the point or points on which they deferred, and the case shall be referred by the President of the Tribunal for hearing on such point or points by one or more of the other members of the Tribunal and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the members of the Tribunal who have heard the case, including those who first heard it. On a plain reading of this Section it would appear that in a case like this the President of the Tribunal has to refer the point or points on which the Tribunal differed to one or more of the other members of the tribunal and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the members who have heard the case including those who first heard it. It seems to us that the President himself cannot hear and decide the point on which there is difference of opinion, but can only refer it to a third member. But it is conceded by counsel for both parties that since the President also is a member of the Tribunal he is competent to hear the matter. The point does not directly arise for decision in this case and we therefore refrain from expressing any opinion on it. But apart from this question, we are of opinion that the order of the President is not in accordance with the language of the Section. 3. The power of the member or members to whom the matter is referred for resolving the difference of opinion is restricted to a decision of the point or points on which the Tribunal differed. The point on which Mr. Gupta and Mr. Chatrath differed was whether the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and odd should or should not be allowed as a revenue deduction. The member to whom the reference was made, be he the President or any other member, would be acting beyond his power if he interfered with the amount that was claimed as a revenue deduction. His power, as we understand the language of the section, is limited only to a decision regarding the admissibility of the amount being claimed as a revenue deduction. We therefore hold that Mr. Shah, in so far as he varied the amount of interest, travelled beyond his jurisdiction, and the order passed by him is consequently not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 4. The result, therefore, is that the point on which Mr. Gupta and Mr. Chatrath differed still remains unresolved. We would accordingly set aside the order of Mr. Shah, in so far as he varied the amount of interest, travelled beyond his jurisdiction, and the order passed by him is consequently not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 4. The result, therefore, is that the point on which Mr. Gupta and Mr. Chatrath differed still remains unresolved. We would accordingly set aside the order of Mr. Shah dated 16th February, 1951 and direct the Appellate income tax Tribunal, to make a reference once again, so that the opinion of a third member may be obtained and the point decided according to the majority view as provided for in Section 5-A(7). 5. The petition is allowed, but in the circumstances we make no order as to costs. Rao, J. 6. I agree. Final Result : Allowed