S.K.mal lodha, J. - (1.) RAJENDRA Mehta, learned counsel for the assessee has submitted an application on 2nd Dec., 1985 praying therein that the question involved in this reference is similar to the question that was answered by this Court in Arivnd Singh vs. CIT (D. B IT Ref. No. 45 of 1977 decided on 22nd Aug., 1985), [since reported in (1986) 52 CTR (Raj) 286], and so this reference may be decided at an early date in terms of the answer given to the question in Arvind Singh's case (supra).
(2.) THIS request of the learned counsel for the assessee is not opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties we have heard the arguments and dispose of this reference today. The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipt of Rs. 2,5000, Rs. 18,000 and Rs. 3000 relating to the asst. yrs. 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 respectively constitute the assessee's income liable to tax ?" The assessee is the married daughter of His Highness Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji of the erstwhile Udiapur State. The controversy relates to the receipts of Rs. 25,000, Rs. 18,000 and Rs. 3,000 in respect of the asst. yrs. 1970-71 to 1972-73. The case of the assessee is that she had received `hath-kharch' allowance consisting of the aforesaid amounts in the above mentioned assessment years and the said receipts do not constitute her income liable to tax. An identical question arose in Arvind Singh's case (supra) decided on 22nd Aug., 1985. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the answer to the question referred by the Tribunal is the same as that given in Arvind Singh's case (supra). It is not in dispute that the question in this Reference has arisen in identical circumstances with those in Arvid Singh's case (supra). After considering the relevant provisions of the IT Act, 1961 (No. XLIII) of 1961) ("the Act" herein), and the relevant authorities bearing on the question, it was held by the Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (S. K. Mal Lodha,J.) was a party, as follows : "For the aforesaid reasons, our conclusion is that the amount received by the deceased-assessee Junior Rajmata Smt. Gulab Kanwar of Udaipur in the relevant years 1970-71 and 1971-72, out of the Privy Purse amount of Maharana Bhagwatsingh was not liable to be taxed in her hands as income. The Tribunal was not right and justified in holding that the amounts received by the deceased-assessee (Junior Rajmata Smt. Gulab Kanwar) were her income and, therefore, liable to be taxed under the Act. In other words, we answer the question reframed by us hereinabove, in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the petitioner (who represents the deceased-assessee) and against the Revenue."
(3.) WE have read the decision in Arvind Singh's case (1986) 52 CTR (Raj) 286 and considered the reasons given therein. WE adopt the reasons given in Arvid Singh's case (IT Ref. No. 45 of 1977) for answering the question in this case. In our opinion on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the receipts of Rs. 25,000, Rs. 18,000 and Rs. 3,000 relating to the asst. yrs. 1970-71, 1971- 72 and 1972-73 do not constitute the assessee's income liable to tax. The reasons for coming to this conclusion are the very same which have been mentioned in Arvind Singh's case (supra). We answer the question accordingly. We leave the parties to bear their own costs of this reference. ;