Judgment :- K. A. THANIKKACHALAM J. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the receipt of Rs. 12, 156 representing the Kanikkai and Sambhavanai received by the assessee herein from his disciples, was not in the nature of income and hence is not liable to income-tax ?" The assessee, Shri Vanamamalai Ramanuja Jeeyar Swamigal, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District, received by way of Kanikkai and Sambhavanai, a sum of Rs. 12, 156. The question was whether the amount so received, was assessable as income-tax under the Income-tax Act, for the assessment year 1974-75. A similar question came up for consideration before the Tribunal in the case of the same assessee wherein the Tribunal held that those receipts were only offerings made as presents out of personal regard, personal esteem and veneration for Shri Ramanuja Jeer Swamigal, and did not constitute income from the exercise of any profession or vocation. The Tribunal also pointed out that there was no evidence to show that the Swamiji had been exercising any profession or vocation. Following the earlier order passed in the case of the same assessee, the Tribunal in the assessment year under consideration held that the sum of Rs. 12, 156 was not income liable to tax. Learned standing counsel for the Department submitted that the Jeer Swamigal is holding the office as the head of Shri Vanamamalai Mutt. Swamigal is professing the cult of the Hindu religion. Any amount brought by his followers would amount to income assessable to tax under the Income-tax Act. Therefore, it was submitted that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that both Kanikkai and Sambhavanai are not taxable under the Income-tax ActOn the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee while supporting the order passed by the Tribunal submitted that any personal gift made to the Swamigal not connected with any profession or vocation cannot be taxable under the Income-tax Act. Income includes not only those things which clause (24) of section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, declared that it shall include, but such things as the word signifies according to its natural import. This clause merely adds artificial categories to the natural connotation of "income". Income includes not only those things which clause (24) of section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, declared that it shall include, but such things as the word signifies according to its natural import. This clause merely adds artificial categories to the natural connotation of "income". The old sub-clause excluded from the definition of "income" voluntary contributions made to a charitable trust "with a specific direction that they shall form part of the corpus of the Trust". The voluntary payment may be neither income nor capital in the hands of the respondent. Personal gifts and some voluntary payments are not income although at the same time they cannot be regarded as capital receipt. If the gift is connected with profession or avocation, that is taxable. Where there is no connection between the gift made and the profession or avocation pursued by the assessee, such personal gifts cannot be called as income taxable under the Act. A gift is personal in the sense that it is given to the person not as a holder of the office or employment, but as a personal testimonial or as a token of personal esteem and veneration, or to mark an occasion and is not income. See Krishna Menon (P.) v. CIT 1959 AIR(SC) 75, 1959 (35) ITR 48, 1959 (S1) SCR 133 (SC), C. Rajagopalachariar v. CIT 1963 (50) ITR 196 (Mad) and Temperley v. Smith [1956] 37 TC 18 (Ch D) ; 1956 (3) AllER 92, 1957 (31) ITR 511, 37 Tax(Cas) 18, 1956 (1) WLR 931 and Maharaj Shri Govindlalji Ranchhodlalji v. CIT 1958 (34) ITR 92 (Bom). So also the awards received by a non-professional sportsman is not taxable [1986] 157 ITR(St) 52). In the present case Kanikkai and Sambhavanai were paid by the devotees to the Jeer Swamigal out of personal regard, personal esteem and veneration. The Swamiji is not exercising any profession or avocation. The voluntary offerings made by devotees though offered to the Swamiji are not for any profession or vocation in which the Swamiji indulged. Since the voluntary contributions were made as offerings to the Swamiji, it will not be considered as income under the Income-tax Act in view of the foregoing decisions cited supra. In the case of the same assessee, this court in T. C. No. 444 of 1981 by its judgment dated April 28, 1994, also came to the same conclusion. Since the voluntary contributions were made as offerings to the Swamiji, it will not be considered as income under the Income-tax Act in view of the foregoing decisions cited supra. In the case of the same assessee, this court in T. C. No. 444 of 1981 by its judgment dated April 28, 1994, also came to the same conclusion. In view of the foregoing reasons, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.