1965 Supreme(Cal) 225

Calcutta High Court
D.N.SINHA,S.A.MASUD
Sridhar Jiew - Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer, District II (I), Calcutta - Respondent
A. F. O. O. Nos. 212, 213, 215 to 217 of 1962
Decided On : 09/17/1965

Headnote:

INCOME TAX - Assessment - Hindu deity - Whether assessable to income tax - Whether the word 'individual' in Section 3 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 includes a Hindu deity - Whether Section 41 of the said Act applies to the case of a shebait - Held, yes.

Fact of the Case:

The facts in these appeals are briefly as follows: By an Arpannama (Deed of Dedication) dated the 17th Baisakh, 1303 B. S. (the 28th April, 1896), Srimati Kadambini Dassy and Sri Purno Chandra Daw, respectively the widow and the son of late Shibkrishna Daw, created a Debuttor Endowment in respect of their family dwelling house at 12, Shibkristo Daw Lane, Jorasanko, Calcutta in which the ancestral family deity Sri Sridhar Jiew was installed and other immovable properties including Debalaya (temple) on the bank of the Ganges at village Barbakpur now known as Barreckpore in which the deities Radharaman Jiew and Sridhar Jiew Salgrarn and six images in Shiva had been enshrined. The said Debuttor is collectively described as "Shib Krishna Debuttor" and the estate is known as the Shib Krishna Debuttor Estate. The present Shebait of the said deities, in terms of the said Arpannama, in Puliu Chandra Daw. For the assessment years 1952-53 to 1956-57, the Income Tax Officer District II(I), Calcutta, assessed the income arising out of the said Debuttor properties in the hands of the said Pulin Chandra Daw, as Shebait. The said assessments were challenged before the appellate auhorities and ultimately, before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta. By the decision of the said Tribunal dated 23rd September, 1960 the appeals were partially successful, inasmuch as it was held that so far as income under the head "property" was concerned, it could not be assessed in the hands of the Shebait under S. 9 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"), inasmuch ,is the Shebaits were not the owners of the debuttor properties. On or about the both March, 1961 five joint notices were issued on the two deities Sri Sridhar Jiew and Radhanumiu Jiew represented by their shebait Sri Pulin Chandra Dav, under S. 34 of the said Act, stating that the Income Tax Officer District II(I), Calcutta, had reason to believe that the income of the said deities assessable to income had escaped assessment and they were, therefore, required to file a return for the said years under section 34 of the said Act. To these notices the deities through their shebait Sri Pulin Chandra Daw, took objection. One of the points taken in the letter of objection was that the said 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 said Act and, therefore, the notices were without jurisdiction and void. As the Revenue did not desist, applications were made by the said two deities represented by their Shebait Sri Pulin Chandra Daw, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent from giving effect to the said notices and that the said notices be quashed by a writ in the nature of certiorari and for such other order or orders as to the Court may seem fit and proper. Rules were issued in these applications and the five applications were heard by Banerjee, J. who by his Judgment and order dated 13th September, 1962 dismissed the said applications and discharged the rules, but made no order as to costs. These appeals are directed against the said orders.

Finding of the Court:

The word 'individual' in Section 3 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 includes a Hindu deity. Section 41 of the said Act applies to the case of a shebait.

Issues: Whether a Hindu deity is assessable to income tax.

Ratio Decidendi: The word 'individual' in Section 3 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 is not defined and can include a group of persons forming a unit. A Hindu deity is a juridical concept and is deemed capable in law of holding property in the same way as a natural person. The shebait of a Hindu deity holds the property, realises the income and looks after the estate or the deity and does all acts in connection therewith which a human being should have been expected to perform. Therefore, the signature of the shebait on a return form is the signature of the deity itself.

Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed with costs.