NAIMUDDIN, J.--1. This is an application under section 66(2) of Income Tax Act, 1922, referring to this Court the following question of law said to arise of the order of the Tribunal dated 27-8-1975, for answer: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that while working out proportionate share of the super-tax attributable to each partner the total super tax should be allocated to the partners of the firm in their profit sharing capacity and not as laid down in section 16(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act?"
2. A question in part similar to the above was referred to this Court in Income Tax Reference No. 187 of 1974 Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigation) Vs. Soli M. Cowasjee (PTCL 1985 CL. 467) and was answered as follows:-- "For the foregoing reasons, our answer to the first part of above- quoted question is that the Tribunal was justified in holding that while working out proportionate share of the super tax attributed to each partner, super tax should be allocated to the partners of the firm in the profit sharing capacity and not with reference to section 16(1)(b) of the Act."
3. Is answering so the Division Bench followed an earlier unreported decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Karachi Vs. Seth Saifuddin Ghulam Hussain, decided on 22-3-1978. We may here quote the relevant observations in this regard.
"We are in respectful agreement with the view of the aforesaid Division Bench in the above- unreported judgment dated 22-3-1-978, Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Karachi Vs. Seth Saifuddin Ghulam Hussain, that section 16(1)(b) of the Act has no relevancy for the purpose of computing a partner's share of super tax but the same is ascertained on the basis of a partner's share in the profit in the fir m concerned which has paid super tax."
4. This decision has been very recently followed in ITR No. 10 of 1976. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mr. Bux Ellahi, wherein the question referred was exactly the same as the case in hand.
5. Miss Nuzhat, Advocate frankly states that she has no other reasons or arguments to advance than those noticed in I.T.R. No. 187 of 1974. We also find no reasons to differ with the decision in the said case. We, therefore, answer it in the affirmative, allowing the parties to bear their own cost.