RAMCHANDRA MARDARAJ DEO Vs. COLLECTOR OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under section 29 (2) of the Orissa Agricultural Income -tax Act, 1947, by the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, in which the following question of law has been raised :

(2.) THE admitted facts are as follows : The petitioner Sri Ram Chandra Mardaraj Deo was, at all material times, the proprietor of the impartible estate of Khallikote in Ganjam District. In respect of the assessment year 1950 -51 he claimed a deduction of Rs. 13,416 out of his total agricultural income on the ground that the said sum was actually paid by him as maintenance allowance to his son (known as Yubaaraj Sahib) who was then studying in Madras. The Income -tax authorities, however, rejected his claim holding that clause (a) of sub -rule (2) of rule 3 of Orissa Agricultural Income -tax Rules, 1948, on which he relied would not apply to the maintenance allowance paid by the proprietor of an impartible estate to his son.

(3.) MR . K. Patniaks argument on behalf of the Raja Bahadur of Khallikote is simple. The previous proprietor of the impartible estate was the father of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioners son is the 'grandson' of the previous proprietor. Clause (a) of sun -rule (2) of rule 3 of the said Rules expressly says that maintenance allowance actually paid to the grandson of the previous proprietor shall be deducted from the total agricultural income liable to assessment. Mr. Patnaik relied on the well -known canon of construction that a taxing statute should be strictly construed and if there is any ambiguity the construction in favour of the subject should be made and urged that the mere fact that the grandson of the previous proprietor also happened to be the son of the present proprietor would not render clause (a) inapplicable.