JUDGMENT Kirpal, J.
1. We have heard counsel for the parties. The Tribunal, in its order, has clearly stated that it had preferred to follow the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Batta Kalyani v. CIT [1985] 154 ITR 59 with regard to the interpretation of section 64(1)(ii) read with the proviso thereto in preference to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. D Rajagopal [1985] 154 ITR 375. The Tribunal has held that the respondent's wife was technically qualified but did not hold a diploma or a degree while the Andhra Pradesh High Court was of the opinion that a diploma or degree was not necessary. The view of the Karnataka High Court is to the contrary. In our opinion, a question of law does arise and, therefore, we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to this court :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the provisions of section 64(1)(ii) read with the proviso thereto were not applicable to the instant case ?"
2. The petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.