9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the offerings made at the feet of Jalarambapa are receipts by the assessee and do not partake of the character of income. 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the amounts being the surplus out of the amounts received at the sacred feet of Shri Jalarambapa. 3. Whether the institution of Jalaram Guddee is a temple or a private religious endowment. 4. Whether the assessee has beneficial interest in the income of the institution. 5. Whether the income from the offerings is the private property of the assessee. Summary: Issue 1: Offerings as Receipts and Character of Income The Tribunal concluded that the offerings made at the feet of Jalarambapa were not income of the assessee. The offerings were made out of personal regard for Jalarambapa and not due to any vocation or office held by the assessee. The Tribunal held that the offerings were voluntary and did not arise from any business, profession, or vocation exercised by the assessee. The High Court affirmed this finding, noting that the offerings were made purely out of reverence for Jalarambapa, and the assessee did not carry on any activities that would amount to a vocation. Issue 2: Deletion of Surplus Amounts The Tribunal deleted the amounts of Rs. 3,04,635, Rs. 8,07,377, and Rs. 7,50,635 being the surplus out of the amounts received at the sacred feet of Shri Jalarambapa. The High Court upheld this decision, agreeing with the Tribunal's finding that the offerings were not income of the assessee. Issue 3: Nature of Institution - Temple or Private Religious Endowment The Tribunal found that the institution of Jalaram Guddee is not a temple but at best a shrine. There was no evidence of consecration of idols or dedication of property for worship. The High Court agreed with this finding, noting the lack of evidence to support the Revenue's claim that the institution was a temple or a public religious endowment. Issue 4: Beneficial Interest in Income The High Court rejected the Revenue's contention that the assessee had beneficial interest in the income of the institution akin to a shebait. The court noted that there was no evidence of the extent of the beneficial interest of the assessee or the custom and usage governing the institution. Issue 5: Income as Private Property The High Court found that the Revenue's contention that the income from the offerings is the private property of the assessee was not supported by evidence. The court noted that the entire case of the Revenue was based on the assumption that the assessee was carrying on a vocation, which was not established by the evidence. Conclusion: The High Court answered the questions in favor of the assessee, holding that the offerings made at the feet of Jalarambapa were not income of the assessee, and the Tribunal was justified in deleting the surplus amounts. The institution of Jalaram Guddee was not a temple, and the assessee did not have beneficial interest in the income of the institution. The income from the offerings was not the private property of the assessee. The Commissioner was directed to pay costs to the assessee in I.T.R. No. 214 of 1978, and no order as to costs was made in I.T.R. No. 68 of 1977.
|
