Narasimham, J. - (1.) THIS is a reference under section 29 (2) of the Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1947, by the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, in which the following question of law has been raised : Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 13,416 paid to the petitioners son as maintenance allowance is legally admissible under sub -rule (2) of rule 3 of the Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Rules, 1948 ?
(2.) THE admitted facts are as follows : The petitioner Sri Ram Chandra Mardaraj Deo was, at all material times, the proprietor of the impartible estate of Khallikote in Ganjam District. In respect of the assessment year 1950 -51 he claimed a deduction of Rs. 13,416 out of his total agricultural income on the ground that the said sum was actually paid by him as maintenance allowance to his son (known as Yubaaraj Sahib) who was then studying in Madras. The Income Tax authorities, however, rejected his claim holding that clause (a) of sub -rule (2) of rule 3 of Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Rules, 1948, on which he relied would not apply to the maintenance allowance paid by the proprietor of an impartible estate to his son.
(3.) SECTION 6 of the Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Act specifies various items of expenditure which may be lawfully deducted from the total agricultural income, in computing the new income liable to agricultural Income Tax. The last clause of that section, clause (k), however, confers power on the Government to make rules specifying some other deductions which may also be lawfully allowed. In exercise of the power conferred by this clause, the Government of Orissa made sub -rule (2) of rule 3 of the Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Rules, 1948, which runs thus : 3. (2) In addition to the deductions specifically allowed under section 6, the following deduction provided under clause (k) of that section shall be allowed : Maintenance allowance, actually paid to the following members of the proprietors family owning an impartible estate, provided that the aggregate of the allowances so paid shall not exceed one -fifth of the net income of the estate, namely : - (a) the son, grandson, or great grandson in the male line, born in lawful wedlock or an adopted son of any previous proprietor of the impartible estate; (b) the widow of a previous proprietor so long as she does not remarry; (c) the widow of the son, grandson, or great grandson of the proprietor so long as she does not remarry or the widow of the son, grandson or great grandson of any previous proprietor so long as she does not remarry, provided that in all cases the widow has no son or grandson; (d) the unmarried daughter born in lawful wedlock of any previous our proprietor; (e) the unmarried daughter born in lawful wedlock of a son or grandson of the proprietor or of any previous proprietor, provided that she has neither father, not mother nor a brother living. Mr. K. Patniaks argument on behalf of the Raja Bahadur of Khallikote is simple. The previous proprietor of the impartible estate was the father of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioners son is the "grandson" of the previous proprietor. Clause (a) of sun -rule (2) of rule 3 of the said Rules expressly says that maintenance allowance actually paid to the grandson of the previous proprietor shall be deducted from the total agricultural income liable to assessment. Mr. Patnaik relied on the well -known canon of construction that a taxing statute should be strictly construed and if there is any ambiguity the construction in favour of the subject should be made and urged that the mere fact that the grandson of the previous proprietor also happened to be the son of the present proprietor would not render clause (a) inapplicable.;