Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J.:- These four appeals, on certificate, are directed by the assessee against the judgment and order dated August 1, 1968 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Income-tax Reference No. 20 of 1964.

2. Two questions of law were referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench C to the High Court. Both the questions were answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

3. The appellant-assessee was the Ruler of Faridkot and he was assessed in the status of an individual for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1960-61, corresponding to the accounting years being the periods ending 12-4-1957 12-4-1958, 12-4-1959 and 12-4-1960 respectively. The assessee had executed a registered trust deed dated April 1, 1955 marked Annexure "A" whereunder he had transferred the United Kingdom Government s Securities of the face value of £ 1,80.000 to the Grindlays Bank, London, as trustee to be held in trust in accordance with the terms and conditions set out therein. As there is no dispute that these Government securities were transferred to the Bank and also regarding the provisions contained therein for distribution of the income accruing from the securities, it is not necessary for us to set out the various clauses in the trust deed. By clause (2) the trustee was directed to divide the trust property into two equal parts. By Clause (3) the trustee, after meeting all outstanding and contingent liabilities, was required to pay the balance income to all or any of the children of the Settlor other than his eldest son, living at the respective dates of payment in equal shares. Similarly, under clause (4) the trustee after meeting all outstanding and contingent liabilities, was directed to pay the balance income to the eldest son of the Settlor Tikka Harmohinder Singh of Faridkot, during his life. Clauses 3 (b) and 4 (c) provided that at the termination of the period of distribution, the Bank shall stand possessed of the capital and income of both 9 parts upon trust for the person, who, at the date of such termination, shall be the successor of the Settlor according to the rule of primogeniture applicable to the dynasty of the Settlor absolutely. Clause (5) defined the period of distribution to be the life of the Settlor and the children of the Settlor living at the date thereof and the lives and life of the survivors and survivor of them and the period of 21 years after the death of such survivor.

4. The assessee owned a house known as Faridkot House situated at Lytton Road, New Delhi, during the assessment year 1960-61. During the same period, the assessee also owned a second property known as Faridkot House, situated in Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi.

5. Rajkumari Mahospinder Kaur, minor daughter of the assessee received from the trustee as per the provisions of the trust deed dated April 1, 1955, Rs. 15,570/-;, Rs. 15,570/-, Rs. 12,446/- and Rs. 10.310/- during the relevant accounting years, corresponding to the assessment years 1957-58 to 1960-61. In the assessment of the assessee as an individual during the said assessment years, the Income-tax Officer District A Ward, Bhatinda, notwithstanding the objections raised by the assessee, included the amounts received by the minor daughter in the total assessable income of the appellant for each of the assessment years under Section 16 (3) (b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The order of assessment for the assessment year 1957-58 was passed on April 27, 1959 and for the other three assessment years on March 23, 1961.

6. On appeal by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Rohtak Range, confirmed the orders of the Income-tax Officer. The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the assessment year 1957-58 is dated July 25, 1961 and for the remaining years, the orders were passed on November 4, 1961. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the contention of the