BANERJEE, J.

1. This is a reference under s. 66(1) of the Indian IT Act.

2. The year of assessment is 1959-60, corresponding to the accounting period ending with the calendar year 1958.

The question of law referred to this Court is :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding, that the sum of Rs. 22,627 was a speculative receipt within the meaning of Explanation 2 to the third proviso to s. 24(1) of the IT Act, 1922, and could not therefore be assessed as a business receipt ?"

3. The reference to "Explanation 2 to the third proviso to s. 24(1)" is somewhat misleading. There is no third proviso to s. 24(1) at present. There are only two, the first proviso having been omitted by Act XLI of 1954.

4. Then again, Explanation 2 is referable to the second proviso, which is now really the first proviso, because the Explanation explains the expression "speculative transactions" used in that proviso. We should, therefore, read the question in a somewhat changed manner and instead of the words "Explanation 2 to the third proviso to s. 24(1) "read" Explanation 2 to s. 24(1), "in order to obviate all criticism. This was agreed upon by t