ORDER Per Smt. P. K. Ammini, Judicial Member - This appeal by the assessment see is against the order of the Commissioner [Appeals]-IX Madras, disallowing the claim for exemption under section 5[1] [xxxiii] of the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment year 1985-86. 2. The status of the assessee in this case in Hindu undivided family [Specified] [Resident] represented by its karta by name Shri V. E. Periannan. The assessee filed a return of wealth on 30-3-1987 admitting a net wealth of Rs. 4,91,000. While completing the assessment for 1985-86 the Wealth-tax Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee for exemption of Rs. 12,01,916 being the investment made out of the remittance from Maur, Malaysia under section 5[1] [xxxiii] of the Act. On appeal the Commissioner [Appeals] confirmed the order of the Wealth-tax Officer. Hence this appeal before us. 3. The only point that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the assessee is entitled to get the exemption under section 5[1] [xxxiii] of the Wealth-tax Act. According to the assessee as long as the karta of the Hindu undivided family satisfies the criteria required by the provision, the assessee shall so have to be treated to be a person of Indian origin or a citizen who was ordinarily residing in a foreign country who had returned to India and the expression ordinarily residing in a foreign country should be equated with the term ordinarily resident used in the Income-tax Act, which expression has also been incorporated in to the Wealth-tax Act and when the karta generally resided or was domiciled in a foreign country, the assessee Hindu undivided family should be deemed to be ordinarily residing abroad. However, the learned departmental representative argued in support of the view taken by the authorities below and submitted that an analysis of the requirements of date of return of India and reference to parent or grandparent etc. of the person returning, showed that the provision was applicable only to an individual human being and if the karta of the Hindu undivided family satisfied the requirement the benefit could not be extended. The point that arises for consideration is whether the claim for exemption sought by the assessee in this case can be allowed. of the person returning, showed that the provision was applicable only to an individual human being and if the karta of the Hindu undivided family satisfied the requirement the benefit could not be extended. The point that arises for consideration is whether the claim for exemption sought by the assessee in this case can be allowed. In other words, whether the denial of the claim of zthe assessee for exemption under section 5[1] [xxxiii] by the authorities below was justifiable or not section 5[1] [xxxiii] of the Wealth-tax Act reads as follows :- "5[1] Subject to the provisions of sub-section [1A], wealth-tax shall not be payable an assessee in respect of there following assets, and such assets shall not be included in the net wealth of the assessee- [xxxiii] in the case of an assessee being a person of Indian original out a citizen of India [hereafter in this clause referred to as such person] who was ordinarily residing in a foreign country and who, on leaving such country, has returned to India with the intention of permanently residing therein moneys, and the value of the assets acquired by him out of such moneys within one year immediately preceding the date of his return and at any time thereafter : Provided that this exemption shall apply only for a period of seven successive assessment years commencing with the assessment year next following the date on which such person returned to India. Explanation : A person shall be deemed to be of Indian origin if he, or either of his parents or any of his grand-parents, was born in undivided India." 5. Admittedly, the Hindu undivided family in question consisted of the karta and his wife. The claim under section 5[1] [xxxiii] of the Wealth-tax Act is based on the ground that the karta of the Hindu undivided family was a person who was ordinarily residing in a foreign country, viz., Malaysia during the relevant period. In order to attract section 5[1] [xxxiii] of the Wealth-tax Act the assessee should have satisfied certain conditions. He has to show that he was a person of Indian original or citizen of India who was ordinarily residing in a foreign country and on leaving such country returned to India with the intention of permanently residing in India. 6. In this case the status of the assessee is of a Hindu undivided family. He has to show that he was a person of Indian original or citizen of India who was ordinarily residing in a foreign country and on leaving such country returned to India with the intention of permanently residing in India. 6. In this case the status of the assessee is of a Hindu undivided family. A plain reading of section 5[1] [xxxiii] would ex facie suggest that the benefit conferred the under could be made available to a human being individual in status. In Explanation to section 5[1] [xxxiii] a person shall be deemed to be if Indian origin if he or either of his partners or any of his grandparents was bone in undivided India. This Explanation is not applicable to a Hindu undivided family because a Hindu undivided family can neither have parents not grand-parents. Therefore, the assessee Hindu undivided family before us does not ex facie satisfy the requirement of being a person of Indian origin. A Hindu undivided family cannot be a citizen of Indian and hence the alternate requirement which was inserted by the Taxation Laws [Amendment] Act, 1984 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1977 to extend the benefit [See notes on clause - 149 ITR Statutes page 65] to all Indian citizens whether they were of Indian original or not cannot also be satisfied by the assessed Hindu undivided family. 7. In S. Sundaram Pillai v. V. R. Pattabiraman AIR 1985 SC 582 the Supreme Court has death with what is the scope of a proviso and what is the ambit of an explanation either to a proviso or to any statutory provision. 7. In S. Sundaram Pillai v. V. R. Pattabiraman AIR 1985 SC 582 the Supreme Court has death with what is the scope of a proviso and what is the ambit of an explanation either to a proviso or to any statutory provision. It is held that : "A proviso may served four different purposes, viz., [1] qualifying or excepting certain provision from the main enactment, [2] it may entirely change the very concept or the intendment of the enactment by insisting on certain mandatory conditions to be fulfilled in order to make the enactment workable, [3] it may be so embedded in the Act itself as to become an integral part of the enactment and thus acquire the tenor and Colours of the substantive enactment itself, and [4] it may be used merely to act as an optional addenda to the enactment with the sole object of explaining the real intendment of the statutory provision, and the object of an Explanation to a statutory provision is-[a] to explain the meaning and intendment of the Act itself, [b] where there is any on security or vagueness in the main enactment, to clarify the same as to make it consistent with the dominant object it seemed to subserve, [c] to provide an additional support to the dominant object of an act in order to make it meaningful and purposeful, [d] an Explanation cannot in any way interfere with or change the enactment or any part thereof but where some gap is left which is relevant for the purpose of the Explanation, in order to suppress the mischief and advance the object of the act it can help or assist the Court in interpreting the true purport and intendment." 8. Viewed in the light of the aforesaid canons of interpretation it has to be held that explanation 1 to section 5[1] [xxxiii] clarifies or explains the meaning of what is meant by the words person of Indian origin and takes it outside the pale of any ambiguity. In view of this Explanation 1 to section 5[1] [xxxiii] we have to construe that the benefit thereunder is available to nobody other than a person of Indian origin, i.e., only to such person who, either of whose parents, or any of his grandparents, was born in Indian. In view of this Explanation 1 to section 5[1] [xxxiii] we have to construe that the benefit thereunder is available to nobody other than a person of Indian origin, i.e., only to such person who, either of whose parents, or any of his grandparents, was born in Indian. So the assessee-Hindu undivided family has not satisfied the first condition as provided in section 5[1] [xxxiii] for invoking the same in its favour. 9. Viewing the matter independently can it be considered that the assessee has satisfied the other condition that the assessee was ordinarily residing in a foreign country during the year ending on the valuation date. The provisions of section 6 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 reads as follows : "6. Residence in India-For the purpose of this Act,- [1] an individual is said to resident in India in any previous year, if he- [a] is in India in that year for a period amounting in all to one hundred and eight-two days or more, etc." Section 6[2] of the Income-tax Act, 1961 say that a Hindu undivided family, firm or other association of persons is said to be resident in India in any arrives year in every case except where during that year the control land management of its affairs is situated wholly outside India. Section 6[4] reads : "Every other person said to be resident in India in any previous year in every cases except where during that year the control and management of its affairs is situated wholly outside India." Section 6[6] :- "A person is said to be not ordinarily resident its India in any previous year if such person is-[a] individual who has not been resident in India in nine out of the ten pervious years preceding that year, or has not during the seven previous years preceding that year been in India for a period of, or periods amounting in all to, seven hundred and thirty days or more; or [b] a Hindu undivided family whose manager has not been resident in Indian in nine out of the ten previous years preceding that year, or has not during the seven previous year preceding that year been in India for period of, or periods amounting in all to, seven hundred and thirty days or more." 10. The statutory concepts of residence under the Income-tax Act are incorporated into the Wealth-tax Act through section 6 there-of. The term ordinarily resident in the Income-tax Act is as seen above a concept which has a statutory connotation. The words used in section 5(1) (xxxiii) of the Wealth-tax Act is ordinarily residing as contra distinct from ordinarily resident. The word residing is to be given its natural meaning, namely the act of physically residing. This only an individual human being can do. A Hindu undivided family is incapable of doing this. We are fortified in our view that what is contemplated in physical residence and not any statutory concept because the proviso states that the exemption is applicable "only for a period of seven successive assessment year commencing with the assessment year next following the date on which such person returned to India." Hence the requirement of ordinarily residing in a foreign country and returning to Indian with the intention of permanently residing in India can only be satisfied by a human being and cannot be satisfied by a Hindu undivided family and the assessee therefore does not satisfy this requirement also. 11. The satisfaction of the requirements of the section has to be considered qua the assessee and not quo the karta of the assessee. Hence the appeal of the assessee does not succeed and is accordingly dismissed.