S.K. Mal Lodha, J. - (1.) MR. D. S. Shishodia states that the requisite number of paper books was not filed as the decision rendered in Arvind Singh v. CIT [1986] 160 ITR 908 (D.B.I.T. Ref. No. 45 of 1977, dated August 22, 1985), governs this case. He further submits that the paper book may be dispensed with and the reference may be disposed of in accordance with the judgment in Arvind Singh's case (supra p. 908).
(2.) MR. B. R. Arora, learned counsel for the Revenue has no objection to the said course being adopted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the order dated August 22, 1985, passed in Arvind Singh's case (supra p. 908) to which one of us (S. K. Mal Lodha J.) was a party. We have also carefully examined the statement of the case and the order passed by the Tribunal in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 615 to 618/JP/1982, relating to the assessment years 1968-69 to 1971-72. The following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipt of Rs. 60,000 each for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 and Rs. 84,000 and Rs. 50,000 relating to the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, respectively, constitute the assessee's income liable to tax ? " Arvind Singh's case (supra p. 908) has arisen in identical circumstances. It was held in Arvind Singh's case (supra p. 908) that the amount received by the deceased-assessee, Junior Rajmata Smt. Gulab Kunwar of Udaipur, in the relevant years 1970-71 and 1971-72, out of the privy purse amount of Maharana Bhagwat Singh was not liable to be taxed in her hands as income and that the Tribunal was not right or justified in holding that the amounts received by the deceased-assessee (Junior Rajmata Smt. Gulab Kunwar) were her income and, therefore, liable to be taxed under the Income-tax Act, 1961. We agree with the reasons given in Arvind Singh's case (supra p. 908). Adopting the reasons given in Arvind Singh's case (supra p. 908) and after considering the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act and the authorities mentioned in the said decision, we are of the opinion that the receipts of Rs. 60,000 each for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 and of Rs. 84,000 and Rs. 50,000 relating to the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, respectively, do not constitute the assessee's income liable to be taxed. Mr. B. R. Arora, learned counsel for the Revenue, did not show us any decision after the date of August 22, 1985, either of this court or of the Supreme Court, taking a contrary view from the one taken in Arvind Singh's case (supra p. 908).
(3.) WE, therefore, answer the question referred for the opinion of this court in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We leave the parties to bear their own costs of this reference. Let the Tribunal be informed of this order in accordance with Section 260(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (No. XLIII of 1961). ;