| Case ID |
00e1f464-4286-4514-bcb5-8aeab4389e68 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Matter No. 93 of 1961 |
| Decision Date |
Sep 13, 1962 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petition filed by the idols Sri Sri Sridhar Jiew and Sri Sri Radharaman Jiew, represented by their shebait, Pulin Chandra Daw, challenging the Income Tax Officer's assessment of the debuttar estate's income. The court held that the shebait is empowered to act on behalf of the idols, including signing declarations and filing returns required under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the income derived from the debuttar properties is subject to income tax, and the idols cannot be rendered immune from assessment due to the nature of their representation. The court affirmed the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in favor of the revenue, emphasizing that the legislation contemplates the taxation of artificial juridical persons like deities. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case Matter No. 93 of 1961 decided on September 13, 1962, the Calcutta High Court addressed the taxation of income derived from debuttar properties vested in deities, specifically Sri Sri Sridhar Jiew and Sri Sri Radharaman Jiew. Represented by their shebait, Pulin Chandra Daw, the petitioners challenged the assessment made by the Income Tax Officer for the assessment year 1952-53. The core issue revolved around whether the shebait, acting on behalf of the idols, had the authority to sign declarations and file income tax returns, and whether the income from the debuttar estate should be subject to income tax.
The court meticulously analyzed the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly Section 41 and Section 2(31), to determine the legal standing of the idols as artificial juridical persons. It was established that the shebait holds a unique position under Hindu law, acting as the manager and legal representative of the deities. This role empowers the shebait to perform all necessary functions for the maintenance and preservation of the idols' properties, including compliance with income tax obligations.
Furthermore, the court examined precedents such as CIT v. Sodra Devi and Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax v. Keshab Chandra Mandal, reinforcing the interpretation that the term 'individual' within the Income Tax Act encompasses entities beyond natural persons. The judgments underscored that artificial juridical persons, including deities represented by shebaits, fall within the ambit of taxable entities under the Act.
The decision emphasized the legislative intent behind the Income Tax Act, 1961, highlighting that the taxation framework accommodates the assessment of incomes from trusts and estates managed by appointed representatives. By discharging the rule in favor of the revenue, the court confirmed that the revenues derived from debuttar properties are taxable, and the shebait's ability to act on behalf of the idols ensures compliance with statutory requirements.
This verdict has significant implications for the taxation of religious and charitable trusts in India, setting a precedent for how income derived from dedicated properties of deities is treated under the law. It clarifies the legal responsibilities of shebaits and reinforces the government's authority to tax incomes earned by artificial juridical persons. The judgment also provides a clear legal pathway for similar cases, ensuring that religious trusts are subject to the same tax obligations as other entities under the Income Tax Act, thereby promoting transparency and accountability in the management of such estates. |
| Court |
Calcutta High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Income Tax Officer,
B.L. Pal,
Sri Sri Sridhar Jiew,
Sri Sri Radharaman Jiew,
Pulin Chandra Daw,
J.C. Pal,
A.K. Motilal,
E.R. Meyer
|
| Judges |
B.N. BANERJEE, J
|
| Lawyers |
J.C. Pal,
A.K. Motilal,
E.R. Meyer,
B.L. Pal
|
| Petitioners |
Sri Sri Sridhar Jiew,
Sri Sri Radharaman Jiew
|
| Respondents |
Income Tax Officer
|
| Citations |
1963 SLD 74 = (1963) 50 ITR 480
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Sodra Devi [1957] 32 ITR 615 (SC),
Durga Proshad v. Sheo Proshad [1881] 7 CLR 278,
Prosunno Kumari Debya v. Golob Chand Baboo [1875] L.R. 2 I.A. 145,
Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax v. Keshab Chandra Mandal [1950] 18 ITR 569 (SC),
Haripada Roy v. Union of India : Civil Revision Case No. 35 of 1955 (Unrep.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
41,
2(31)
|