( 1 ) THESE two Expenditure Tax References (Expenditure Tax References Nos. 13 and 14 of 1964) will be disposed of by one order because they raise identical questions relating to two sister concerns, and indeed practically one set of arguments has been addressed in this Court. ( 2 ) EXPENDITURE Tax Reference No. 13 of 1964 relates to Messrs. Charat Ram and Sons and the facts necessary for understanding the controversy would be clear from the following relevant portion of the agreed statement of the case forwarded to this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench "c"): " 2. The case refers to the assessment year 1958-59, tor which the previous year was the calendar year ended 1957. The assessee, Messrs. Charatram and Sons, New Delhi, is a Hindu undivided family. In its return for assessment year 1958-59, the assessee-family claimed before the Expenditure-tax Officer that the expenditure of Rs. 11,150 incurred by it on the purchase and installation of a central air- conditioning plant in its newly built house at Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi, was exempt under Sec. 5 (e) of the Expenditure-tax Act. His contention was rejected by the Expenditure-tax Officer in the view that the plant was not part and parcel of the building but was covered by the expression other household goods occurring in Section 6 (1) (d) of the said Act. In this view, he granted exemption for four-fifths of the expenditure of Rs. l1,150 and included only the remaining one fifth in the taxable expenditure of the assessee-family. ( 3 ) THE assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Expenditure-tax and contested the validity of the aforesaid order of the Expenditure-tax Officer. But the appeal proved unsuccessful. ( 4 ) IN the further appeal that followed, the Tribunal, however, held that Section 5 (e) of the Act clearly covers the expenditure in question and accepted the assessee s contention on the point. It was found that the house in question was specially designed to contain an air- conditioning plant for purposes of centrally heating and cooling the whole house. ( 5 ) THE assessee-family consisting of Shri Charatram, the karta, his wife and his four children, all of whom were minors, proceeded to Kashmir for a holiday and incurred in the relevant previous year a total expenditure of Rs. 19,808. ( 5 ) THE assessee-family consisting of Shri Charatram, the karta, his wife and his four children, all of whom were minors, proceeded to Kashmir for a holiday and incurred in the relevant previous year a total expenditure of Rs. 19,808. From the extract of the ledger acount in the books of Messrs. Bharatram Charat- ram (P.), Ltd. , it appears that the position was as follows:--The assessee claimed that this expenditure was also exempt and could not be treated as expenditure of the family as all the members of the family have separate properties of their own apart from the properties belonging to the family and that though the expenses were on ginally debited to the Hindu undivided family s account, they were later on apportioned between the various individuals concerned, for it was mutually agreed between the parties that the expenses should be borne by each of them individually out of their own separate properties and not by the family. On this ground, it was claimed before the Expenditure-tax Officer that this expenditure cannot be treated as having been incurred by the Hindu undivided family This contention was rejected by the Expenditure-tax Officer who held that the expenditure was includible in computing the taxable expenditure of the Hindu undivided family. The matter was carried in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Expenditure-tax who upheld the decision of the Expenditure-tax Officer. Further appeal to the Tribunal, however, proved successful, the Tribunal upholding the assessee s contention that the expenditure should be treated as having been borne by the individual members out of their separate funds and not by the family. ( 6 ) IN the assessment ot the assesses family s taxable expenditure for the assessment year 1958-59, the assessee sought to exclude sums aggregating to Rs. 2,997, being the expense incurred tor personal purposes of the members such as club expenses, travelling expenses, expenses on outfit, price paid for a watch, etc. The assessee-f amity contended before the Expenditure-tax Officer that the amount of Rs. 2,997 represented the personal expenses of the members of the assessee-family incurred by them but It had been wrongly debited to the Hindu undivided family s account. The assessee-f amity contended before the Expenditure-tax Officer that the amount of Rs. 2,997 represented the personal expenses of the members of the assessee-family incurred by them but It had been wrongly debited to the Hindu undivided family s account. The Expenditure-tax Officer, however observed that there was nothing to indicate that although those expenses were debited to the assessce- family s account, the same were to be treated as personal expenses of the individual members of the family, particularly when regard is had to the fact that most of those expenses were such as could have been normally met by the assessee-family, etc. , watch for one of the daughters purchased by the karta, Charat Ram, tailoring bills of clothes, etc. The Expenditure- tax Officer further observed that the fact that a considerable amount of expenses which were formerly debited to the Hindu undivided family s account, was later on transferred to the personal account of the karta, Shri Charat Barn, by credit to the assessee-family s account during the previous year clearly demonstrated that wherever necessary adjustments regarding such expenses had been made in the accounts. Accordingly, the Expenditure-tax Officer assessed the said amount ot Rs. 2,997 as part of the assessee family s taxable expenditure for the assessment year 1958-59. Copy of the Expenditure-tax Officer s order is annexed hereunto as Annexure a and forms part of the case. ( 7 ) THE matter was carried in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Expenditure-tax, who upheld the decision ot the Expenditure-tax Officer. Copy of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is annexed hereunto as Annexure b and forms part of the case ( 8 ) IN the further appeal that followed, the Tribunal held that it was not for the Department to dictate that the expenditure of Rs. 2,880 was to be met only by the assessee-family. Accepting the assessee s contention that the expenditure had been incurred by the members of the family in their individual capacity from their personal income, the Tribunal held that S. 4 (1) of the Expenditure-tax Act had no application, and in that view the Tribunal held that the expenditure of Rs. 2,880 incurred for personal purposes of the members of the assessee-tamily should be excluded from the taxable expenditure of the assessee-family. 2,880 incurred for personal purposes of the members of the assessee-tamily should be excluded from the taxable expenditure of the assessee-family. ( 9 ) THE Tribunal s order accepting the assessee s contention on the above points is annexed hereunto as Annexure c and forms part of the case. ( 10 ) AT the request ot the assessee, a summary of the Kashmir expenses account and a map of the building in question are annexed hereunto as Annexures d and e and form part of the case. ( 11 ) FROM out of the aforesaid facts. the following questions of law arise; (I) Whether on the tacts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 11,150 incurred by the assessee-family in connection with the installation of an air-conditioning plant, it its newly built house was exempt under S. 5 of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957? (II) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure of Rs. l4,808 incurred by the members of the assessee-family on a trip to Kashmir was not covered under Section 4 (1) of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957, and was, therefore, not includible in the taxable expenditure of the assessee-family; and (III) Whether on the tacts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in Holding that the expenditure of Rs. 2. 880 incurred by the members of the assessee-family for their personal purposes such as club expenses, travelling expenses, expenses on outfit, price paid tor a watch, etc. , was not covered under Section 4 (1) of the Expenditure-tax Act. 1957, and was, therefore, not includible in the taxable expenditure of the assessee-family?" ( 12 ) IN regard to the first question relating to the expenditure of Rs. 11,150, Section 5 (e) of the Expenditure-tax Act No 29 of 1957 (hereinafter called the Act ), as it existed in 1957, which is the relevant point of time. reads as under: "5. Exemption from expenditure tax in certain cases. 11,150, Section 5 (e) of the Expenditure-tax Act No 29 of 1957 (hereinafter called the Act ), as it existed in 1957, which is the relevant point of time. reads as under: "5. Exemption from expenditure tax in certain cases. No expenditure-tax shall be payable under this Act in respect of aw such expenditure as is referred to in the following clauses, and such expenditure shall not be included in the taxable expenditure of an asses see: (e) any expenditure incurred by the asses see in connection with the acquisition of any immovable property or in the construction repair maintenance or improvement of any immovable property belonging to him. " The question requiring answer by this Court is whether the installation of an air-conditioning riant in a newly built house is exempt under Bus clause. According to the learned counsel for the Department, an air-conditioning plant would more appropriately fall within the pur view of Section 6 (1) (d) of the Act which is in the following terms: "6 Deductions to be made in computing the taxable expenditure. (i) the taxable expenditure of an assessee tor any year shall be computed after making the following deductions and allowance s, namely: (d) four-fifths of any expenditure incurred by way of capital expenditure on the purchase of furniture and other household goods motor-cars and other conveyances or any other articles for the personal use of the assessee or any of his dependants:provided that where a deduction as afore said is made one-fifth of the said capital expenditure shall be deemed to be incurred by the assessee m each of the four ears succeeding the previous year in which the expenditure was incurred and no deduction shall be made under this clause in the assessment for any succeeding year in respect of expenditure so deemed to have been incurred in any earlier year. " The submission pressed before us by Shri A N. Kirpal, the learned counsel for the Department, is that the air-conditioning plant can neither be held to be a part of the immovable property, nor can it be held to be an improvement of such property, and, therefore, the expenditure incurred in connection therewith can on no reasonable hypothesis be considered to fall within the purview of Section 5 (e) of the Act. Such a plant can more appropriately be equated with an air-conditioner fixed in a room which, when looked at from a practical point of view, cannot be considered to be a part of the immovable property. Support for this submission has been sought from the argument that depreciation under the Income-tax Act is allowed on an air-conditioning plant as distinct from the building in which it is fixed. ( 13 ) SHRI Karkhanis the learned counsel for the assessee, has in reply submitted that an air-conditioning plant is an integral part of the immovable property and that, in any event, it is an improvement within the contemplation of Section 5 (e ). There is no evidence on the record, says the counsel, suggesting that the plant can be detached from the immovable property and it is emphasised that the plant has been found to be of durable nature. ( 14 ) THE question posed is by no means simple or easy to answer, and indeed much can be said for both the points of view canvassed at the Bar but after devoting our most anxious thought to the arguments addressed, we are inclined. as at present advised, to lean in favour of the plant, when fixed to the immovable property to become a part of it and we are further inclined to think that there is a greater; reason to hold that it constitutes an improvement of the immovable property concerned. Considering this view to be somewhat more persuasive, we uphold the decision of the Appellate Tribunal on this point and answer the first question referred in the affirmative. . ( 15 ) THE second question relates to the expenditure of Rs. 19. 808 spent on a trip to Kashmir by the members of the assessee-family, and we have to see whether this expenditure fills within Section 4 (1) of the Act. Section 4 (1) may here bereproduced: "4. Unless otherwise provided in Sec. 5, the following amounts shall be included in computing the expenditure of an assessee liable to tax under the Act namely: (1) any expenditure incurred, whether directly or indirectly by any person other than the assessee in respect ot any obligation or personal requirement of the assessee or any of his dependants which, but for the. expenditure having been incurred by that other person, would have been incurred by the assessee to the extent to which the amount of all such expenditure in the aggregate exceeds Rs. 5,000 in any year Shri A. N. Kirpal, teamed counsel tor the Revenue. has very strongly urged that this expense was incurred by the joint Hindu family and not by the minors As guardian of the minors, the father could not burden the minor s estate when the undivided Hindu family had already incurred the expenses. On the other hand, on behalf of the assessee, it has been argued that all the members of the family had separate properties of their own apart from the properties belonging to the family and though the expenses were originally debited to the account of the Hindu undivided family, they were later on apportioned between the various individuals concerned, it being mutually agreed between the parties that the expenses should be borne by each of them individually out of their own separate properties and not by the Hindu undivided family. This expense, it is contended, cannot be considered to have been incurred by the Hindu undivided family, assessee, in the case in hand. After considering the rival contentions advanced, it must be borne in mind that an undivided Hindu family is not a human being and the Hindu undivided family as a unit of assessment, has, from the very nature of things, to function through individual member or members of such family. Merely because initially the amount was debited to the account of the Hindu undivided family, would not, in our opinion, be conclusive of the fact as to who has spent this money for the purposes of the Act. If the amount has actually been within reasonable time shown in the account-books to have been spent by the various individuals concerned, then this expenditure may well be considered to have been allocated to the coffers of the individuals for whose benefit and on whose comfort it was actually spent. Assessees, in our view, must always be entitled to so adjust their affairs as to be able to reduce to the minimum their liability to be taxed within the statutory language permissible and it would be an unjust construction of tax-laws to unduly stretch or strain them tor the purpose of enhancing the burden on the tax-payer. Assessees, in our view, must always be entitled to so adjust their affairs as to be able to reduce to the minimum their liability to be taxed within the statutory language permissible and it would be an unjust construction of tax-laws to unduly stretch or strain them tor the purpose of enhancing the burden on the tax-payer. Reference has been made on behalf of the Revenue to the definition of the word "dependent" as contained in Section 2 (g) of the Act. "dependent" according to this definition, means (ii) Where the assessee is a Hindu undivided family (a) every coparcener other than the karta; and (b) any other member of the family who under any law or order or decree of a Court, is entitled to maintenance from the joint family property "this definition, in our view, would not be of much assistance in the present case because if the dependants have got their own separate property and they choose to spend out of that property, it would not stand to reason to allocate their expenditure to that of,the Hindu undivided family where the parties agree that they should spend out of their separate funds. There is nothing illegal or fraudulent about it as it is perfectly lawful for an assessee to so arrange his income and expenditure as to take his case out of a taxing statute. We are accordingly in clined to agree with the Appellate Tribunal on the second question as well which is also answered in the affirmative. ( 16 ) THIS brings us to the third question which is concerned with the expenditure of Rs 2. 880 incurred by the members of the assessee family for their personal purposes such as club expenses, travelling expenses, expenses on outfit price paid for a watch etc. This amount again requires construction of Section 4 (1) of the Act. No separate arguments were addressed on behalf of the Revenue on this question and it appears to us that the answer to this, question should also be in favour of the assessee. Before concluding, we may point out that on behalf of the assessee. This amount again requires construction of Section 4 (1) of the Act. No separate arguments were addressed on behalf of the Revenue on this question and it appears to us that the answer to this, question should also be in favour of the assessee. Before concluding, we may point out that on behalf of the assessee. our attention has been drawn to the following decisions: DARSHAN Surendra v. Commissioner of Expenditure-tax, Gujarat, 1965-57 ITR 592 (Guj); Commissioner of Expenditure-tax, Bombay v. Lal Chand Hira Chand, 1965-58 ITR 60 (Bom); and Additional Expenditure-tax Officer, Palghat v. Venugopala Ravi Varma Raja, 1967-64 ITR 188 = ( AIR 1966 Ker 235 ) ( 17 ) THE assessee, in our opinion, is entitled to the costs of this hearing which we fix at Rs. 250. Only one set of costs.