ORDER Per Shri T. C. A. Ramanujam (accountant Member) - In this appeal the appellant pleads that gifts made to his son Selvarajan on account of his marriage on 18-11-1983 should be exempted under section 5(1) (ii) of the Gift-tax Act, Exemption was denied by the Gift-tax Officer on the ground that Selvarajan was not dependent upon the mother for support and maintenance. 2. Shri T. R. Rajaraman pleads that Gift-tax Act is a fiscal statute and any ambiguity in interpretation should be resolved in favour of the assessee. He also submitted that any provision for exemption or relief should be construed in favour of the appellant. It is his case that a son is dependent upon the parent for his daily requirement like food, etc., whatever be his age and financial position. Shri Udayakumar, Departmental Representative on the other hand points out that Selvarajan is separately assessed to income-tax and himself gave gift of Rs. 50,000 to his would-be wife before his marriage. He contended that he cannot be considered a dependent when he was having a net wealth of Rs. 2,00,000 and his annual income exceeded Rs. 35,000. 3. Exemption under section 5(1) (vii) depends on the satisfaction of three cumulative conditions, viz. : (1) gift is to the relative; (ii) such relative is dependent upon the assessee for support and maintenance; and (iii) the gift is on the occasion of the marriage of the dependent relative (Refer CGT v. Budur Thippaiah [1976] 103 ITR 189 (AP). There is no definition for the term dependent in the Gift-tax Act. This connotes in the words of Gulanikar, 1989 edition at page 3.107 actual and matter of fact dependence on the earnings of the assessee for maintenance and support. Such dependence is for essentials of life such as food, clothes, education and medical care. The term mainly dependent on the assessee for support and maintenance occurs in clause (iii) of the proviso to section 164(1) of the Income-tax Act. It was held in CIT v. Gunvatlal Jivanlal Family Trust [1982] 133 ITR 162 (Guj.) that minors with their own sufficient incomes and assets were not dependent upon the parent. 4. We uphold the assessment and dismiss the appeal in the light of the facts of the case.