TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (2) TMI 24
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....70, to the High Court for its opinion. The facts giving rise to these reference applications, in brief, are as follows : The assessee is the senior Rajmata of Maharana Bhagwatsinghji of Udaipur and was in receipt of monthly allowance of Rs. 5,000 paid to her by the Maharana of Udaipur out of the privy purse received by him. The assessee claimed before the ITO that the amount of Rs.60,000 received by her as hat kharch allowance is exempt from income-tax, as under s.10(19) of the I.T. Act, 1961, any amount received by the ruler of an Indian State as privy purse under art. 291 of the Constitution was exempt from income-tax. The ITO, however, did not accept the contention of the assessee and assessed the amount during the relevant years, as a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Constituent Assembly for holding that the privy purse was granted to the rulers not only to make their own expenditure, but also for the expenditure of their family members and that it was free from tax liability. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the amount was exempt even in the hands of the assessee under s. 10(19) of the Act, since all the members of the family were entitled to a share of the privy purse. The Tribunal was also of the view that the assessee was entitled to an exemption under s. 10(2) of the Act, inasmuch as the hath kharch allowance had been paid out of the income of the family. The Tribunal observed that the joint family of Maharana Bhagwatsinghji consisted of himself, his two mothers, wife, two sons and one daughte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ground that the allowance received by the assessee would be allowable under section 10(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the question sought to be raised by the revenue becomes of an academic nature. It would have been a different matter if the revenue would have challenged the findings of the Tribunal on both the grounds but as the revenue has not disputed the alternative ground no good purpose would be served by referring the question proposed by the revenue as the decision on this issue would be purely of academic nature. Accordingly, we do not deem it proper to refer the same for the opinion of their Lordships. " Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the order of the Appellate Tribunal, does, in our opi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e same question. In our opinion, the Appellate Tribunal was unduly technical in throwing out the application for reference under s. 256(1) of the Act. It could have framed the question in general terms so as to cover both the aspects. A large number of authorities have been cited by the learned counsel for the parties. We need not refer to these decisions in detail as the principles are well settled. In CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 589 (SC), which is the leading case on the subject, Venkatarama Iyer J., speaking for their Lordships, observed : " Now a question of law might be a simple one, having its impact at one point, or it may be a complex one, trenching over an area with approaches leading to different point....