1950 (10) TMI 24 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of Income from Schedule C Properties under Section 41 of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Taxability of Income from Schedule C Properties under Section 41 of the Income Tax Act

Background:
This case revolves around the interpretation of a trust deed executed by the Maharajadhiraj of Darbhanga on 23-7-1929, in favor of his brother, Raja Bahadur Visheswar Singh. The deed involves maintenance grants known as Babuana grants, which are given to junior members of the family. The key question is whether the income from the properties mentioned in Schedule C is taxable at the maximum rate under the first proviso to Section 41 of the Income Tax Act.

Facts:
The trust deed specifies that the income from Schedule B properties is to be used for the performance of Puja, Path, Raj Bhog, Utsab, and Samaiya of various deities, while the income from Schedule C properties is to be used for the upkeep, repair, and maintenance of palaces, temples, gardens, tanks, and other appurtenances. The Income Tax Officer assessed the income at the maximum rate, stating that the shares of the beneficiaries were indeterminate. This was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but partially overturned by the Income Tax Tribunal, which differentiated between Schedule B and Schedule C properties.

Contentions:
- Assessee: The properties in both Schedules B and C are part of the same endowment in favor of the deities, making the deities the cesti qui trust. Therefore, the income should be assessed based on the individual shares of the deities.
- Department: The document creates two separate trusts: one for the deities (Schedule B) and the other for the maintenance of non-juridical entities like palaces and gardens (Schedule C). Hence, the income from Schedule C properties should be taxed at the maximum rate.

Judgment:
The Court analyzed the trust deed and concluded that the document did not create two separate trusts. Instead, it created a single trust for the deities, with separate provisions for the performance of religious activities and the maintenance of associated structures. The Court emphasized that the intention was to provide for both the worship of deities and the upkeep of the temples and related structures, which are integral to the same trust.

The Court noted that the Income Tax Tribunal erred in treating the document as creating two different kinds of trusts. The properties in Schedule C, like those in Schedule B, were dedicated to the deities, and the income should be disbursed for determinate objects, i.e., the deities, who are juridical persons. Therefore, the income from Schedule C properties should be assessed in the same manner as the income from Schedule B properties.

Conclusion:
The reference was answered in the negative, meaning that the income from Schedule C properties should not be taxed at the maximum rate under the first proviso to Section 41. Instead, it should be taxed on the same basis as the income from Schedule B properties. The Court held that the assessee would not be entitled to any costs for the hearing of this application.

Separate Judgment:
Shearer, J., concurred with the order proposed but expressed doubts about the correctness of the decision in Joytishwari Kalimata v. Commissioner of Income Tax B. & O., suggesting that it might need reconsideration in the future.