Judgment

ALAGIRISWAMI, J.:- The question that arises for decision in these appeals is whether a Hindu deity is an "individual" within the meaning of that word under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It arises out of the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in a number of references under Section 66 (1) of the Act. The facts necessary for the decision, in a short compass, are these: In the year 1820 one Smt. Chitra Dassi executed an Ekrarnama making a gift of a piece of land for religious purposes. In 1842 she executed a writ referring to the fact that she had earlier made the property debutter directed her four sons, the executors, to perform the daily service of Sri Radhagobindjee. She died in 1855. In 1876 a suit was filed in the Calcutta High Court praying that the trust should be administered by the Court and a scheme prepared. Subsequently, there were a number of applications made from time to time and a number of orders were also made on them. In 1929 a scheme of administration was framed and a little later the Official Trustee of Bengal was appointed to be the trustee of the said debutter estate. After the official trustee took possession of the properties he was assessed in respect of the income of the debutter estate in the status of an "individual" under Section 41 of the Act. In respect of the assessment years 1939-40 to 1942-43 a reference was made under Section 68(2) of the Act. A Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that upon a proper construction of the scheme sanctioned and orders passed by the High Court the property should be held to be a religious trust. The matter again went up to the High Court in respect of the assessment years 1943-44 to 1951-52. Three questions finally came to be considered by the High Court:

Q.1. Whether upon a proper construction of the relevant documents executed by Smt. Chitra Dassi and the relevant schemes sanctioned and orders passed by the High Court, there was a trust in favour of the deity or whether there was a dedication of the properties to the Diety ?

Q.2. Alternatively, if the dedication to the Thakur constitutes trust, is if a religious trust which did not ensure to the benefit of the public?

Q.3. Is the Thakur Radha Gobinda Jee liable to assessment under the Indian Income-tax Act?

On question No.1 the High Court held that upon a proper construction of the relevant documents executed by Chitra Dassi and the relevant schemes sanctioned and ordes passed by the High Court there was a dedication of the properties to the deity, but that there was no trust in the technical sense, that is to say, as understood in the English law. In respect of the first part of the 2nd question both parties before the High Court agreed that in that question, the word "trust" did not mean a trust in the technical or the English sense. The High Court pointed out that it has been held that a dedication is a trust in the general sense within the meaning of the expression as used in Sections 4, 40 and 41 of the Income-tax Act and the word "trust" can be applied to Hindu endowments. On the second part of the question it was held that the endowment is a private religious trust and the documents creating it or confirming it grant no benefit to the Calcutta High Court by which certain directions were given for feeding the poor, were the only instance in which a benefit enured to the public. As regards the 3rd question the High Court elaborately discussed whether the deity could be held to be an "individual" and held that the deity was liable to assessment under the Income-tax Act.

2. Before this Court the only point argued was whether the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the deity is an "individual". When the High Court dealt with this question it did not have the benefit of the decision of this Court in Jogendra NathNaskar v. Commr. of Income-tax, (1969) 74 ITR 33 wherein it was held that a Hindu deity falls within the meaning of the word "individual" in Section 3 and