Dr. B. P. Saraf, J - By this reference under section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Guwahati has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income owned by a Khasi family as a unit would be entitled to exemption u/s. 10 (26) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as in the case of the income of an individual Khasi." The assessee is a Khasi family. The relevant assessment year is 1980-81. The income of the assessee during the relevant previous year was Rs. 1,02,230/- i. e. far in excess of the taxable limit/The assessee did not submit any return of income voluntarily under section 139 (1) of the Act. It also did not do so even in compliance to notice under section 139 (2) of the Act. The assessee, however, appeared before the ITO throught its authorised representative, in response to a notice under section 142 (1) of the Act for production of books of account and documents and submitted that the assessee family was not liable to be taxed under the Act as its total income was exempt by virtue of section 10 (26) of the Act. The claim of the assessee was rejected by the ITO on the ground that the exemption was available only to the individual members of the Scheduled Tribes and not to the family comprising of such members. The ITO treated the assessee family as a "body of individuals'' and assessed it under section 144 of the Act on a total income of Rs. 1,02,230/-. The assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) upheld the order of the ITO so far as it relates to the assessee being treated as a body of individuals, but reversed the same so far as it related to rejection of the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 10 (26) of the Act and held that the income of the assessee family was exempted from Income-tax under section 10 (26) of the Act. The order of the CIT (Appeals)'was upheld by the Tribunal. The order of the CIT (Appeals)'was upheld by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the CIT filed an application before the Tribunal, under section 256 (1) of the Act and the Tribunal, on being satisfied that a question of law did arise out of its order, has referred the aforesaid question of law to us for opinion. Section 10 of the Act deals with incomes which are not to be included in the total income of a person for the purpose of tax under the Act. Clause (26) thereof, as substituted by the North Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) (Adaptation of Laws on Union Subjects) Order, 1974 with effect from 21.1.72, reads as follows; "10. Incomes not included in total income.-In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included- (1) to (25) ... Incomes not included in total income.-In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included- (1) to (25) ... … … (26) in the case of a member of a Scheduled Tribe as defined in clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution, residing in any area specified in Part I or Part II of the Table appended to paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution or in the States of Nagaland, Manipur ,and Tripura or in the Union Territories of Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram or in the areas covered by notification No. TAD/R/35/50/109 dated the 23rd February, 1951, issued by the Governor of Assam under the proviso to sub-paragraph (3) of the said paragraph 20 (as it stood immediately before the commencement of North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971 (18 of 1971) any income which accrues or arises to him.- (a) from any source in the areas, States or Union Territories aforesaid, or (b) by way of dividend or interest on securities:" From a bare reading of this section it is clear that the following conditions must exist in order to entitle a person to the exemption : (i) He should be a member of a Scheduled Tribe as defined in clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution; (ii) He should be residing in any area specified in Part I or Part II of the Table appended to paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, or the State or Union Territories mentioned in this provision ; (iii) The income in respect of which exemption is claimed must be an income which accrues or arises to him- (a) from any source in the area, State or Union Territories mentioned in the provision, or (b) by way of dividend or interest on securities. [See (1976) 103 ITR 82 at page 86]. In the instant case there is no controversy about the existence of the last two conditions. There is also no controversy that Khasis are members of Scheduled Tribe as defined in clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution. It is also not in dispute that had the income in question in the instant case accrued to a single member of Khasi Tribe it would have been exempt under section 10 (26) of the Act. There is also no controversy that Khasis are members of Scheduled Tribe as defined in clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution. It is also not in dispute that had the income in question in the instant case accrued to a single member of Khasi Tribe it would have been exempt under section 10 (26) of the Act. The only controversy is that the income in the instant case having accrued not to an individual Khasi but to a Khasi family, whether this exemption will be available. In other words, whether the benefit of exemption available to a member of Khasi Tribe will be available even if the income is earned by him not as an individual but as a group of individuals comprising of the members of his family. There is no dispute that all the members of the family are Khasis. We have carefully applied our mind to the controversy. The word 'family' is a popular expression. It should be given a normal meaning and should not be construed technically unless it is so intended by the statute. Most commonly the word `family' refers to a group of persons consisting of parents and children; father, mother and their children; immediate kindred. It also means a collective body of persons who live in one house and under one head or management; a group of blood relatives; all the relations who descend from a common ancestor, or who spring from a common root; a group «f kindred persons, husband and wife and their children. (See Black's Law Dictionary). So construed, a Khasi family would mean a group of Khasis who are blood relatives or who spring from a common root. Viewed thus, it is difficult to say that the benefit of exemption from income-tax given under section 10 (26) of the Act to a member of a Khasi tribe wilt cease to be available if such income accrues not to an individual member, but collectively -to a number of such members known as family. It must be remembered that section 10 (26) is a beneficial provision intended to provide protection to the members of the Scheduled Tribes from the burden of income tax. The benefit is confined to tribal people residing in specified areas and that too is available only in respect of income accruing or arising to them from any source in such areas. The benefit is confined to tribal people residing in specified areas and that too is available only in respect of income accruing or arising to them from any source in such areas. Thus whatever limitation the legislature wanted to put, it has specifically incorporated in the clause itself. No more condition or restriction can be added, nor such beneficial provision can be given too narrow a meaning which may result in disentitling the members of the Khasi tribe from the benefit conferred by this clause. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the clear opinion that the benefit of exemption under section 10 (26) of the Act will be available even in cases where income accrues not to an individual member of Khasi Tribe, but to a family comprising of such members. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.