Judgment :- RAMANUJAM J. The question referred to us by the Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act is this "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to double tax relief of Rs. 19, 654 under the Agreement for Relief from or Avoidance of Double Taxation between India and Ceylon for the assessment year 1955-56 ?" * The assessee, though a resident in India, had certain sources of income in Ceylon as well. For the assessment year 1955-56, he was originally granted double tax relief to an extent of Rs. 13, 960 under the Agreement for Relief from or Avoidance of Double Taxation between India and Ceylon. The assessee was not satisfied with the quantum of relief given by the Income-tax Officer. He filed an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who held that the Income-tax Officer has to take into account the Ceylon profit tax paid by the assessee while calculating the abatement which he is entitled to under the Agreement. The Income-tax Officer, consequently, worked out the relief which the assessee will be entitled to at Rs. 17, 969.41 by adopting the lesser of the rates of taxes, Indian and Ceylonese. On further appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the Income-tax Officer. When the matter came up before the Tribunal, it held that, on a proper interpretation of the Agreement, the assessee will be entitled to claim abatement at the lesser of the tax levied. The revenue seeks to challenge the view taken by the Tribunal by this reference From the facts noticed above, it will be seen that the reference involves interpretation of the Agreement for Relief from, and Avoidance of, Double Taxation in India and Ceylon. We find that the very same Agreement came up for consideration before this court in Commmissioner of Income-tax v. S. K. Srinivasan, and the view taken by the Bench was that, on a proper reading of article III of the Agreement, the revenue should allow an abatement equal to the lower of the amounts of tax attributable to such excess in either country. The following observations in that decision are pertinent "On a prima facie reading of the text of this article it is clear that the country is obliged to allow an abatement equal to the lower of the amounts of tax attributable to such excess in either country. The words used are 'amounts of tax'. They have no relation to or impact over the rates of tax prevalent in each of the countries." * We are in respectful agreement with the decision in the above case. On a correct reading of article III of the Agreement, such a conclusion is inescapable We, therefore, answer the reference against the revenue and in the affirmative. There will, however, be no order as to costs Reference answered in the affirmative.