Judgment :- N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. This is a reference at the instance of the Revenue and the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law for our consideration under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"), "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 30, 887 received by the assessee in September, 1975, in pursuance of the Madras Government's order is not includible in the assessee's total income and chargeable to income-tax." The assessee is one Dr. P. L. Meyyappan who jointed the Defence Service in the Government of India in the year 1963, as a private candidate and while he was in that service, he applied to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for regular appointment as Civil Assistant Surgeon and was selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and appointed as a regular Assistant Surgeon in the Tamil Nadu Medical Service. He joined duty on 12th August, 1973. The Government of Madras by order, dt. 17th September, 1965, sanctioned the payment of family allowance of Rs. 250 per month to each medical officer in the Madras Medical Services, whether married or single, whether regular or temporary and who was seconded to the armed forces. The question that arises is whether the sum of Rs. 250 per month received as family allowance is liable to be taxed under the provisions of the Act. In the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed that the amount received was exempt on the ground that the family allowance was given to the wife by the Government of Tamil Nadu during his service in the Defence Ministry and was intended to be given to the family and herein the amount was liable to be exempt. The ITO rejected the claim of the assessee which was upheld by the AACThe Tribunal, however, on appeal by the assessee, came to the conclusion that the amount was paid as compensation on account of high cost of maintenance of the family in Tamil Nadu. The Tribunal also held that the amount was paid to the family members of the officers concerned and the payment could not be regarded as "salary" under the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal also held that the amount was paid to the family members of the officers concerned and the payment could not be regarded as "salary" under the provisions of the Act. The Revenue challenged the order of the Tribunal and the question of law set out earlier has been referred to us seeking our answer. We are of the opinion that the family allowance was paid to the assessee and the allowance arose by virtue of the employment of the assessee in the Government of Tamil Nadu. No doubt, the purpose of the payment might have been meant to compensate the cost of maintenance of the family, but the assessee received the money by virtue of his employment and he was not given the payment de hors his employment as a Government servant. The payment is in noway different from other allowances payable to an employee. Since the payment arose by virtue of his position as an employee, we are of the opinion that learned counsel for the Revenue was right in his submission that the amount should be treated as a part of his salary. We are also not in agreement with the view of the Tribunal that the amount was paid to the family members of the assessee and under the terms of the Government order, the money was payable either to the assessee or to the family members, whether married or single. The money under the relevant Government order was payable to the Government servant and only by nomination made by the assessee, the payment was made to his family members. The reasons given by the Tribunal to exclude the family allowance from the scope of the IT Act are not legally sustainable. The payments arose directly to the assessee by virtue of the employment of the assessee as a Government servant. We are therefore, of the view that it was rightly treated by the ITO as salary and assessed under the head "Salary". Hence, we are unable to accept the view of the Tribunal that the amount received is exempt under the provisions of the IT ActAccordingly, we answer the question of law referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Since the assessee is not represented, we make no order as to costs.