JUDGMENT Collister, J. - This is a reference under S. 66(2), income tax Act. The assessee is the Rev. J.C. Manry and the year of assessment is 1936-37. The assesses belongs to the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America; and so too does his wife. They had at the material time four children, two boys and two girls. The assessee and his wife each receive a separate salary and a house allowance from the Board, and the Board also pays an allowance in respect to each of the four children. Upto and including the year 1935-36 the salaries of the assessee and his wife and the allowances on account of the children were lumped together by the income tax authorities and were assessed jointly to tax. 2. This was done, as stated by the Commissioner of income tax in his statement of the case, on the assumption that the wife's salary and the allowances for the children were "additional emoluments paid to the assessee to meet the additional cost of married life and education of his children." For the year 1936-37 the assessee returned an income of Rs. 2318 only, which represented his own salary and house allowance; he claimed that his wife should be separately assessed on her salary and that the allowances for the children were exempt from taxation on the ground that they were personal allowances to the children and were not perquisites within the meaning of S. 7 of the Act either of the assessee or of his wife. The income tax Officer repelled this claim and assessed the assessee upon a total income of Rs. 7712, which included the salary and the house allowance of the assessee's wife and the allowances for the children. 3. Against this assessment an appeal was preferred and the Assistant Commissioner allowed the assessee's claim for the exclusion of his wife's salary on the ground that it was the latter's own income; but he rejected the claim for exemption in respect to the allowances for the children on the ground that they were paid by the Board to meet the additional cost of maintenance and education of the children and were in the nature of perquisites taxable in the hands of the assessee. Thereafter the assessee preferred an application to the Commissioner of income tax for the exercise of his revisionary powers under S. 33 or alternatively for a reference to this Court under S. 66(2) of the Act. The Commissioner declined to exercise his-powers of revision under S. 33 of the Act, but he has referred the following question of law to this Court: Whether on the facts of the case the sum of Rs. 3078 paid by the board for the maintenance and education of the assessee's children is the income, profits and gains of the assessee within the meaning of S. 3 of the Act, and taxable in his hands? 4. The Commissioner is of opinion that the answer should be in the affirmative. In stating his opinion he says: It will be observed that the allowance commences from the first day of the month in which the child is born and it is obvious that it is the parent to whom the allowance is payable. 5. Further on he says: "The children's allowances become payable only by reason of the employment of the parent on missionary work by the board and it is clearly stated in the paragraph quoted" (by this is meant para. 144 of the Manual of the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., revised edition of 1933) "that the allowances terminate when the missionary leaves the service of the Board. The payment of the allowances is thus entirely dependent on the missionary's service with the Board, and, therefore, in my opinion the allowances constitute "perquisites or profits" to the missionary parent within the meaning of S. 7(1) of the Act, and are as such taxable as salary in the hands of the parent." 6. Then the Commissioner says: There is a further question as to whether the allowances should be treated as part of the salary of the father or the mother or of both. This question has only arisen because Mrs. Manry also happens to be employed on missionary work by the Board. But the allowances would have been payable even if Mrs. Manry was not so employed and as it is the father who is primarily responsible for the maintenance and education of the children, I am of opinion that the allowances should be treated as part of the salary of the assessee. 7. But the allowances would have been payable even if Mrs. Manry was not so employed and as it is the father who is primarily responsible for the maintenance and education of the children, I am of opinion that the allowances should be treated as part of the salary of the assessee. 7. In our opinion the Commissioner's view is correct. "Perquisite" is defined inter alia in Webster's Dictionary as "a gain or profit incidentally made from employment in addition to regular salary or wages, especially one of a kind expected or promised......."In Murray's English Dictionary it is defined as "any casual emolument, fee or profit attached to an office or position in addition to salary or wages." What we have to consider is whether the allowances which are paid by the Board for the children of the assessee are or are not perquisites or profits in addition to his salary and whether they fall under the head of "salaries" under Ss. 6 and 7(1), income tax Act. Mr. Ramnama Prasad, who has vigorously argued this reference on behalf of the assessee, pleads in the first place that the allowances belong to the children themselves and form no part of the income, profits or gains of either of the parents. Alternatively he contends that if the allowances do form part of such income, profits or gains, the assessee and his wife are equally entitled to these allowances and it is impossible to say that they form part of the income, profits and gains of the one rather than of the other; and in these circumstances the assessee is not liable to be taxed in respect to them. Paragraph 144 of the manual has been re-produced by the Commissioner of income tax and it reads as follows: The Board makes certain provisions towards the increased costs of the children of missionary parents by an allowance of 200 dollars per year for each child under ten years of age, 300 dollars for the next six years, and 420 dollars for the following five years, the final increase being only for those in school or college. No allowances will be paid after 18 years of age and if the child becomes self-supporting, has married or has left school for other than health reasons. All allowances cease at the end of the 21st year, or one month after a child's death at an early age. No allowances will be paid after 18 years of age and if the child becomes self-supporting, has married or has left school for other than health reasons. All allowances cease at the end of the 21st year, or one month after a child's death at an early age. They are usually suspended during furlough extensions (Arts. 38, 196). The allowances are computed in full months from the first day of the month in which the birth occurs, increases to begin from corresponding dates. Allowances for children taken to the field by new missionaries begin with the departure from home on the outward journey. All children's allowances terminate when the missionary leaves the service of the Board, save that, in co-operation with the pension Board, the allowances of children whose father has died in active service are continued as though the father were continuing in service. The Board cannot provide allowances for travel for adopted children, nor advance travel funds for them as a loan. 8. Upon the plain language of this paragraph it would appear that these allowances are paid to missionary parents by reason of increased cost which they have to incur on account of their children. The rule provides that when the missionary leaves the service of the Board, these allowances shall terminate-except where the father has died in harness, so to speak, in which case the allowances continue (until the age of 21) as a sort of pension. This shows that the allowances are directly dependent upon service; they are paid on account of and during the continuance of employment and if the missionary who is entitled to receive these allowances on behalf of his or her children elects to quit the service of the Board, he or she is no longer entitled to receive them. There is before us an extract from an affidavit which was sworn by the. Treasurer of the Board on 18th August 1936, in which he says: The allowances to children of missionaries of the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America are in no sense or manner part of the salaries or remuneration of their parents. 9. Treasurer of the Board on 18th August 1936, in which he says: The allowances to children of missionaries of the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America are in no sense or manner part of the salaries or remuneration of their parents. 9. We have no doubt that the Treasurer made this statement in good faith and it presumably represents his interpretation of the rules; but we find it difficult to reconcile his statement with the relevant portion of the Manual. Chapter 7 is headed "Salaries, Allowances and Furloughs" and it is divided into seven main headings marked ABCDEFG Heading A is "Salaries" and it is under this very heading that we find the provisions in respect to allowances for children, which indicated that, whatever opinion the Treasurer may have held, the Board itself regarded these allowances as forming part of the salary of the missionary concerned. In all the circumstances we are of opinion that these allowances must be regarded as falling under the head of "Salaries" as contemplated by S. 6 and S. 7(1) of the Act. This finding does not quite conclude the matter, for learned counsel for the assessee further claims exemption on the ground that it cannot be said that the assessee rather than his wife is liable to pay the tax in respect to these allowances. We do not think that there is any real force in this contention. Under English law the father is the natural guardian of his children and it is not suggested before us that the American law is in any way different. The assessee in his letter dated 5th May 1938 has by clear implication admitted that it was he himself who received these allowances, and this is only what one would expect. The allowances are for the maintenance and education of the children and it is naturally the father who would receive them. He certainly goes on to say: From the age of 16 my son Robert himself received his own allowance each month and was responsible for its expenditure himself. My second son, John, has just reached the age of 16 on 26th March 1938 and has begun to receive his own allowance each month and to spend it himself. 10. He certainly goes on to say: From the age of 16 my son Robert himself received his own allowance each month and was responsible for its expenditure himself. My second son, John, has just reached the age of 16 on 26th March 1938 and has begun to receive his own allowance each month and to spend it himself. 10. We accept this statement of the assessee as correct: but he does not say from whom his two sons have been receiving the allowance, whether from himself or from the Treasurer. Assuming that it is the Treasurer who has been paying these allowances to Robert and John, there is nothing in the assessee's letter to indicate whether this was done by the Treasurer on his own account or at the instance of the assessee; and we find it difficult to believe that the Board can ever have contemplated that these allowances should be paid direct to the minor children. They may have been nominally received by these two boys, but in the circumstances the actual recipient must be deemed to have been their father, the assessee. In our opinion, the allowances must be treated as an addition to the assessee's income under S. 7(1) of the Act and we therefore answer the reference in the affirmative. The assessee will pay the costs of this reference. We fix the Advocate-General's fee at Rs. 200. A copy of our judgment will be sent under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the Court to the Commissioner of income tax.