Case Details

Citation(s)
1967 SLG 179 1967 SLD 179 (1967) 63 ITR 192
Calcutta High Court
APPEAL FROM ORIGINAL ORDER Nos. 212 TO 217 OF 1962, SEPTEMBER 17, 1965
SINHA AND MASUD, JJ
R.B. Pal, J.C. Pal and A.K. Motilal for the Appellant. A.C. Mitra and S. Mukherjee for the
Respondent

Sri Sri Sridhar Jiew

v.

Income Tax Officer

Law:

Section:

Section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Corresponding to section 3 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) - Individual - Assessable as - Assessment years 1952-53 to 1956-57 - Whether a Hindu idol is juristic entity who is given status of human being capable of having property - Held, yes - Whether, however, Hindu idol/deity has to act only through shebait - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, a Hindu deity is assessable to tax and it is competent for a shebait to sign a form of return on behalf of deity - Held, yes FACTS By an arpannamah (deed of dedication) one 'K' and her son, created a debutter endowment in respect of their family dwelling house in which the ancestral family deity was installed. The said debutter was collectively described as 'Shib Krishna Debutter' and the estate was known as the Shib Krishna Debutter Estate. The present shebait of the said deities, in terms of the said arpannamah, was 'P'. For the assessment years 1952-53 the 1956-57, the ITO assessed the income arising out of the said debutter properties, in the hands of the said 'P', as shebait. However, on second appeal, the Tribunal held that so far as income under the house property was concerned, it could not be assessed in the hands of the shebait under section 9 of 1922 Act. Thereafter, the ITO issued notices under section 34 of 1922 Act. To these notices, the deities through their shebait filed objection that the 1922 Act did not contemplate assessment of the income of a deity and, during the relevant years, the deities were excluded from the operation of the 1922 Act and, therefore, the notices were without jurisdiction and void. The revenue authorities turned down the aforesaid objections. Thereupon, a writ petition was filed on behalf of the deities which was dismissed by the Single Judge. On appeal: HELD The provision of section 41(1) of 1922 Act uses the word 'trustee' or 'trustees' but these terms have nowhere been defined in the said Act. The only restriction is that in order to come under the mischief of section 41(1) of 1922 Act, the 'trustee' or 'trustees' must be appointed under a trust declared by a duly executed instrument in writing, whether testamentary or otherwise. It is…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492