LexYOGENDRA NATH NASKAR versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CALCUTTA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
YOGENDRA NATH NASKAR
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CALCUTTA
February 18, 1969
A
{I. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.)
8
Income-tax A.ct (11 of 1922)-Hindu Deity-If can be tax.<d througlt
shebtlits.
Finding that the assessments of the income from the properties of two
Hindu. deities in the hands of its shebaits as trustees were set aside on th~
footing that the status of the assessees had not been correctly determined,
the Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings for the assessments again!ft th~
shebaita of the deities and c:Ompleted the assessments on the deities in th!!
statuo of an individual and through the shebaits. On the question wh<ther
tlae auessments on the deities through the i;hebaits were in accordance
with law,
HELD : The Hindu idol is a juristic entity capable of holding property
and of being taxed through its shebaits who are entrusteJ with the pos-
session and management of its proper.ty.
A Hindu deity fell within the meaning of the word 'individual' under
s. 3 of the Act ;,.ind couid be treated as a unit of assessment undl!r the
section and was capable of being taxed through its shebaits.
Tne word
'individual' in s. 3 of the 1922 Act included within its connotation al!
artificial juridical persons and this legal position was n1ade explicit and
beyond challenge in the 1961 Act. (750 C; 751 DJ
Neither God nor any supernatural being could be a person in law.
But liO far as the deity stands as the representative and symbol of rh.:-
particular purpose whic.in is indicated by the donor; it can figure as a legat
persoo and in that capacity alone the dedicated property vests in it. Th,:-r~
is no principle why a deity as such a legal person should not bt! taxed
if such a legal person is allowed in law to own property even though in
·the ideal sense and to sue, for the prvperty, to realise rer..t and to dcfen\.~
such property in a court of law again in the ideal sense. [749 F]
Manohar Ganesh v. Lakshmira1n, I.L.R. 12 Born. 247;
Vidyap1!l'J11!
Tirtha Swami v. Vi<l,vo·nldhi Tirtha Swami & Ors., !.L.R. 27 ~fad. 435;
.Maharan~t Shibessouree Dehia v. Mothocrariath Acharjo, 13 1\1.L:A. 270;
./'rosanna Kw:ir.ri Dcbya v. Golab Chand Baboo,
L.R.
2
I.A.
145;
l'ramotha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick & Ors., 52 I.A.
c
D
E
F
245; Bhupati v. Ram/al, 10 C.L.J. 355; Hindu Law of Religious & Clra1·i1-
G
·ahl~ Trust by Mr. B. K. 1\lukherjea; The Commissioner of lncome•tax,
Madhya Pradesh & JJhopal v. Sodra Devi, (1958] S.C.R. I; Cape Br«ndy
Syndical~ v. l.R.C., (1921] 2 K.B. 403 and Attorney General v. Clarkson,
.(1900] 1 Q.B. 156. referred to.
·
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 690 •
694 of 1968.
Appeals from the i.udgment and order dated April 3
4, 5.
1965 of the Calcutta High Court in Income-tax Reference 1'1o. 50
of 1961.
ff
-·
Y. N, NASKAR v. C,I.T. (Ramaswami, I.)
743
A
M. c. Chagla and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant (i;n all
·C
D
E
F
G
H
the appeals).
S. T. Desai, G. C. Sharma and B. D. Sharma, for the ·reopon-
dent (in all the appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ramaswami, J.
These appeals are brought from the judg-
:11.cnt of the Calcutta High CoUrt dated 3rd, 4th and 5th April,
1965 in Income Tax Reference No. 50 ot 1961 on a certificate
granted under section 66A of the Iµdian Income Tax, Act, 1922
(hereinafter called the Act).
One Ram Kristo Naskar left a will dated 17th May, 1899
by which he left certain properties as debuttar to two deities Sri
Sri Iswar Kubereswar Mahadeb Thakur and Sri Sri Ananda-
moyee Kalimata in the land adjoining hi.s residential house at
7 4 /7 5 Beliaghata Main Road.
He appointed his two adopted
sons Hem Chandra Naskar (since deceased) and Yogendra Nath
N askar as the shebaits. Elaborate provision was made as to the
liWmer in which the income from the property was to be spent.
For a long time the income from the property was assessed in
the hands of the shebaits as trustees. In respect of the assess-
ment years 1950-51 and 1951-52, the two shebaits contended
that there was no trust executed ~n the case and as such the
income from the property did ·not attract liability to tax and
particularly the assessments made in the name of Hem Chandra
]'(askar and his brother Yogendra Nath Naskar as
trustees of
the debuttar estate could not
be sustained.
The Appellate
Assistant Commissioner accepted this contention oo appeal and
set aside the asseExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.