- (1.) THIS is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, to answer the following questions of law, namely : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of law, the allowance in question received by the assessee was wrong application of the privy purse received by the Ruler, Maharana Bhagwat Singhji of Mewar ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of law, the payment of such allowance was not expenditure in the hands of the erstwhile Ruler, Sri Bhagwat Singhji, and that such allowance is expense of Maharana Bhagwat Singhji of Mewar ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of law, the allowance in question received by the assessee could be termed as income of the assessee ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of law, the said allowance was not exempt from income-tax under Section 10(2) or under Section 10(19) of the Act or under any other provisions of the Act ? 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Hath-Kharcha allowance received by the assessee from her son, H. H. Maharana Bhagwat Singhji of Udaipur, karta of the family, out of privy purse was liable to income-tax in the hands of the assessee ? 6. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the allowances in question were not received by the assessee as a member of a Hindu undivided family and that the same were also not paid out of the income of the family or out of the income of the estate belonging to the family ? 7. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in holding that the allowances were not paid out of the income of the joint family nor were they paid to the assessee in her capacity as a member of the joint family ?"
(2.) THE relevant assessment years are 1970-71 and 1971-72. On identical facts, similar questions relating to the Junior Rajmata, Smt. Gulab Kanwar, were referred for the decision of this court at the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal's view therein also being the same, that, is, against the assessee. THE decision of this court in that reference is reported as Deceased Junior Rajmata Smt. Gulab Kanwar by legal representative Arvind Singh v. CIT [1986] 160 ITR 908. THE Division Bench deciding that reference had reframed the questions referred into one question which covers the points involved for decision in all these questions. THE question for decision really is the liability to tax in the hands of the Rajmata of the amount paid by the Maharana out of his privy purse, described as "Hath-Kharcha" for the Rajmata. That reference related to the Junior Rajmata, Smt. Gulab Kanwar of Udaipur while the present reference is in respect of the Senior Rajmata, Smt. Birad Kanwar of Udaipur. THE point involved for decision is the same. It would be more appropriate to reframe the above questions into one question as under : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the payments received by the deceased-assessee, the Senior Rajmata Smt, Birad Kanwar of Udaipur, during the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, as 'Hath-Kharcha' from Maharana Bhagwat Singhji out of his privy purse was liable to be taxed in the hands of the deceased-assessee as her income ?" The above question has to be answered following the earlier Division Bench decision in the aforesaid reference of the Junior Rajmata. It was held therein that the amounts received by the deceased-assessee were not to be treated as her income, liable to be taxed in her hands. This reference is also answered accordingly. Consequently, this reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by holding that the Tribunal was not justified in taking the view that the amounts received by the deceased-assessee, the Senior Rajmata Smt. Birad Kanwar, were her income and, therefore, liable to be taxed under the Act. No costs.;