assessee made gift of Rs. 50,000 to his minor daughter Kumari B. Nandana for her education and maintenance. GTO held that daughter was born in 1980 and there was no hurry to make any gift. Further there was no need to allocate separate funds for minor daughter's maintenance and education. Thus, he disallowed exemption claimed and taxed same. On appeal, AAC held that under section 20 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Hindu father had obligation to maintain his daughter. Thus, gift made by assessee to his minor daughter for education and maintenance is not taxable. Against same revenue has preferred this appeal. 2. learned departmental representative firstly urged that there was no need to make gift of Rs. 50,000 to his minor daughter and so sum of Rs. 50,000 is taxable under Gift-tax Act, 1958 ('the Act'). At any rate gift made is excessive. 3. We have considered rival submissions. assessee has gifted Rs. 50,000 to his minor daughter Kumari B. Nandana for her education and maintenance. Under section 20 assessee is under obligation to maintain his daughter. Thus, gift of Rs. 50,000 made by assessee is valid. It cannot be said that it is excessive. gift made by person for education of his children to extent it is reasonable is exempt under section 5(1) (xii) of Act. Admittedly, assessee is rich man. Thus, in our view gift of Rs. 50,000 made by assessee to his minor daughter is reasonable and cannot be considered as excessive. It is exempt under section 5(1) (xii) . 4. In CGT v. Ch. Chandrasekhara Reddy [1976] 105 ITR 849 (AP), out of 2 7 acres, assessee gave 10 acres 54 cents of land to his daughter in consideration of her marriage. On those facts Andhra Pradesh High Court held that if conveyance can be said to have been made to discharge obligation of father to provide for maintenance of his daughter in shape of reasonable expenses incidental to marriage, it can be said to be transfer for consideration. In CGT v. Bandlamudi Subbaiah [1980] 123 ITR 509, Andhra Pradesh High Court held that provision made for unmarried daughters towards their maintenance and marriage is not gift within meaning of section 2(xii) of Act nor could it be deemed to be gift under any of clauses of section 4 of Act. In CED v. Smt. P. Leelavathamma [1978] 112 ITR 739 (AP), Tribunal held that under Hindu law joint family estate is liable for marriage and maintenance expenses of unmarried daughter and sum of Rs. 50,000 claimed as deduction for marriage expenses of daughter of deceased was perfectly justified. On those findings revenue sought reference to High Court which was rejected by Tribunal as well as by Andhra Pradesh High Court. 5. ratio laid down in above cases would squarely apply to instant case. In our view gift of Rs. 50,000 made by assessee to his minor daughter is exempt under section 5(1) (xii). Thus we uphold order of AAC. 6. In result, appeal fails and is dismissed. *** GIFT-TAX OFFICER v. B.V. RATNAKUMAR