The income derived by trustees under a deed of endowment for religious functions and poojas of particular deities falls under the mischief of the first proviso to s. 41(1) of the IT Act, 1922, where the respective shares of the beneficiaries are indeterminate or unknown.

1. S.A. MASUD, J. In this reference under s. 66(1) of the IT Act, 1922, the short point to be decided is whether the income derived by trustees under a deed of endowment in respect of certain immovable properties for the purpose of certain religious functions including services and poojas of particular deities fall under the mischief of the first proviso to s. 41(1) of the Act. The facts of the case are as follows :

2. SRI Rajendra Nath Dutt executed a will dt. 6th Aug., 1892, under which he created, inter alia, a trust in respect of several houses and godowns including the tenanted houses at No. 10, Convent Road, and No. 62, Dharamtolla Street, Calcutta. This settlement of trust was made to ensure due performance of certain religious festivals and ceremonies and poojas of certain deities. At the material period the applicants were the trustees to the estate of the late SRI Rajendra Nath Dutt for each of the asst. yrs. 1952-53 and 1953-54. The applicants were assessed to a total income of Rs. 7,973 being the rental income from the house property at No. 10, Convent Road, Calcutta, and No. 62, Dharamtolla Street, Calcutta, and ground rent, etc. The ITO taxed this income at the maximum rate under s. 41(1) of the IT Act on the ground that the income is to be utilised by the trustees for performing certain poojas and was "not specifically receivable on behalf of any one person." On appeal, the AAC held that the income was not liable to tax at the maximum rates under the proviso to s. 41(1) as the income was not receivable by the trustees on behalf of any one person, natural or artificial. The Department, thereafter, appealed against the said order of the AAC before the Tribunal which allowed the appeal. On these facts the following question of law arising out of the Tribunal's order has been referred to us:-

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the income from the property in the hands of the assessee- trustees was assessable at the maximum rate by virtue of the first proviso to s. 41(1) of the Income-tax Ac ?"

Dr. D. Pal, learned counsel for the assessee, has submitted at the outset that as the answer to the question involves construction of the will of the said Sri Rajendra Nath Dutt, he should be allowed to refer to a copy of the said will although it has not been included in the paper-book. Mr. S. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the Department, has, in his usual fairness, agreed with Dripal and a copy of the will, by consent of the partias has been made an annexure to the statement of the case.

3. THE main contention of Dr. Pal is that the assessed income of Rs. 7,973, being the rental income from the house property at No. 10, Convent Road, Calcutta, and 62, Dharamtolla Street, Calcutta, and ground rent, etc., should not be taxed in the hands of the trustees at the maximum rate under the first proviso to s. 41(1) on the ground that the said proviso has no application in the instant case, inasmuch as the shares of the persons for whom the said income was received by the trustees are definite specified amounts. According to him, the tax shall be leviable at the maximum rate when the shares of the beneficiaries in the income of the trust property are indeterminate or unknown. In the instant case, according to him, the shares of the persons for whom the income has been collected or received by the trustees are definite, specific figures. Mr. S. Mukherjee, on the contrary, has submitted that the word "shares" in the first proviso to s. 41(1) means a fixed specific proportion of the income of the trust property and not a specified amount as contended by Dr. Pal. According to him, under the will no fixed proportion or definite fractional part in the income of the trust property has been given, and as such, the individual shares of the beneficiaries are indeterminate and, therefore, assessable at the maximum rate under the said proviso.

4. THE point involves a matter of first impression and no reported jud