P L D 1969 Dacca 267 (PLP)

The assessee, a Hindu undivided family, submitted returns for the assessment years 1961‑67, 1962‑63 and 1963‑t4 claiming exemp tion on account of educational expenses under section 15‑E of the Act. The Income‑tax Officer disallowed the claim. His view was that a Hindu undivided family could not have any children; of its own. On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner observed as follows: ‑ "That the Hindu undivided family is a composite body made up of its individual members and the words `his children' used in this connection could be referred to the Hindu undivided family. There is also a definition of the term `person' in section 2(9) in the Act itself which includes `Hindu undivided family: In the circumstances I find no justification to take any other view and to exclude the members of the Hindu undivided family from the benefit of section 15‑E." He, therefore, allowed the appeal and granted exemption to the, assessee from payment of income‑tax for the amount spent on educational expenses of children. It was not contended before us that these children were not wholly dependent upon this Hindu undivided family. If, there fore, such expenses were borne by the assessee, it is entitled to claim allowances admissible under section 15‑E of the Act. The Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal rightly rejected the appeals preferred by the Commissioner of Income‑tax against the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in respect of all the s three assessment years. The question referred to us should be answered in the affirmative, for, the Income‑tax Officer failed to appreciate that even a Hindu undivided family can have children wholly dependent on it. Moreover, simply because, the words `his children' have been, used in section 15‑E of the Act, the assessee cannot be denied this exemption. In a number of sections in the Act, the pronoun `his' has been used in reference to a firm or a Hindu undivided family and therefore this claim cannot be negatived by reason only of the presence of the pronoun `his'. To mention only one such section, we may refer to subsection (1) of sec tion 15‑AA of the Act. It reads as follows: "(1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (2), (3), the tax shall not be payable by an assessee, not being a company, on so much of his total income as is invested by him in the purchase of Post Office Savings Certificates and such Govern ment Securities (including Development Loans) as may be specified by the Central Government in this behalf." If pronoun `his' would be sufficient to exclude a company it would not be necessary to use the expression "not being a company" in the section. Here in this section, obviously a firm or a Hindu undivided family is entitled to the exemption exclusion having been made only in the case of a company. if the presence of the pronoun `his' would have been sufficient, the expression "his total income" occurring in the said section would have excluded a firm or a Hindu undivided family or a Company. But in accordance with the provisions of section 15‑AA, a firm or a Hindu undivided family is entitled to exemption if it purchases certificates con templated therein. On a reading of section 15‑E, we are of opinion that we cannot attribute such a discriminatory intention to the Legis lature that a Hindu undivided family would not be entitled to claim such exemption under section 15‑E of the Act as will be to available to others for educational expenses of the children. We are also in complete agreement with the Tribunal that so far as this section is concerned exemption can be claimed by the assessee on the ground that there are children who are wholly dependent upon this Hindu undivided family. For the reasons stated above, we answer the question in the affirmative. Since none, has appeared for the assessee, we make no order as to costs. A. H. KHAN, J.‑‑I agree. S. Q.