Sir, it is now more than six weeks since the Finance Bill was presented to the House along with the Budget for 1964-65 Government's policies as reflected in these proposals have been very fully discussed in both Houses of Parliament. In my reply to the general debate, I had explained the broad economic and social objectives of the tax proposals. Elucidations of the detailed implications of these proposals have also been furnished to hon'ble members. I would, in particular, draw attention to the document, Rationale of the Tax Proposals, circulated a few days ago, which relates to the basic economic objectives with the specific tax measures in the Finance Bill. It is not, therefore, necessary for me now to go again into the economic basis of the Budget. The tax proposals have evoked a considerable amount of active and well informed interest and perhaps also active resistance among certain sections not only in this House but also outside, in the Press and among the public at large. Some of the interests concerned have made specific representations to Government. This wide discussion that has taken place has been very useful and has helped us to formulate certain amendments to streamline the proposals in the Finance Bill to give a measure of relief where it was deserving and to remove some unintended hardships and anomalies. The official amendments that have been tabled are as a result of this process. I place them before the House in the hope that the provisions of the Finance Bill, as modified by these amendments, will serve to implement more effectively the basic objectives of the Budget, namely, growth with social justice, and I shall confine my remarks, in the main, to explaining how the amendments proposed fit into the overall rationale of the provisions in the Finance Bill. Sir, at the time of introducing the Budget, I gave some thought whether it was necessary for me to introduce the Finance Bill as it related to direct taxes at the same time and whether I should not follow the practice, followed in the United Kingdom, of introducing a Bill later on after outlining the provisions. Finally, I stuck to the convention but in the light of my experience this year, I do hope to be able to make the departure, namely, to announce the proposals first and bring in the Bill later. The structure of personal taxation in the Finance Bill is a considerably simplified one. The main changes introduced in this year's Budget aim at simplification of the rate structure of income tax, relieving persons in the lower and small income groups from the burden of compulsory deposits, moderating and readjusting the incidence of tax consistently with the interest of revenue, and introducing the advantage of tax savings in mobilizing greater private savings in the middle and higher income groups. Overlapping surcharges on income tax and supertax have been abolished and replaced by a single surcharge for purposes of the Union. This surcharge operates in respect of unearned income only, when such income exceeds Rs. 90,000 and in regard to earned income when such income is over Rs. 1 lakh. In carrying out these changes in the structure of personal taxation, a somewhat higher incidence of tax might have arisen at some income levels when compared with the incidence of net tax for 1963-64 exclusive of the element of compulsory deposit. This has been criticized in the House and outside and I have been considering whether some concession could be given to lower income groups in the income range up to Rs. 20,000. The effect of these changes on married individuals with more than one child, which is the most important category of assesses, will be to lower the tax payable on earned as well as unearned income as compared to 1963-64 rates excluding the compulsory deposit at all levels of income up to Rs. 8,500. On incomes above this level, there will be a reduction except at a few points where the tax payable now will be slightly higher, but in no case exceeding one fifth of one per cent of the total income, and these concessions will provide a measure of further relief to these income groups. The annuity deposit scheme, in the new scheme of taxation, is an important instrument for mobilizing private savings and to counter inflationary trends. The provisions relating to this scheme have already been fully explained and I need not go into them again. I would, therefore, confine myself to the changes that are proposed to be made. I had already indicated in my reply to the general discussion in the Lok Sabha that the deposit is proposed to be made optional in the case of persons who are more than 70 years of age. Such persons, under the amendment, may exercise the option not to make the deposit in the first year of assessment. Submit