1981 (2) TMI 15 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the dedication was made in favor of two deities, Sree Sree Radha and Sree Sree Gobind.
2. Whether income from property should be included separately in the total income of the two deities, Sree Sree Radha and Sree Sree Gobind Jew, under section 9(3) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Dedication in Favor of Two Deities

The primary issue was whether the dedication by Smt. Chitra Dassi was made in favor of two distinct deities, Sree Sree Radha and Sree Sree Gobind, or a single deity, Sree Sree Radha Gobind Jew. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the evidence, including the solemn declaration by a Sanskrit scholar and the photostat copies of the temple, concluded that the deities were indeed two distinct entities, Sree Sree Radha Jew and Sree Sree Gobind Jew. This conclusion was based on the historical, socio-religious, and philosophical context of the documents executed by Smt. Chitra Dassi, which indicated that the deities held properties as tenants-in-common.

The Revenue argued that the documents should be read as a whole without extrinsic evidence, asserting that the literal meaning of the words used by the dedicator suggested a single deity. They cited "The Construction of Deeds and Statutes" by Sir Charles E. Odgers and the Privy Council decision in Rajendra Prasad Bose v. Gopal Prasad Sen, emphasizing that the court should ascertain the intention from the words used in the document, considering the surrounding circumstances only to understand the real intention of the executant.

However, the court noted that the documents were executed by an illiterate and unsophisticated religious lady in the early 19th century, and thus, the words "Radha Gobind Jew" should be interpreted in the popular sense used by the majority of people at that time. The evidence from Dr. Gouri Nath Shastri, a Sanskrit scholar, was considered relevant in understanding the Hindu religious context, which recognized Sree Sree Radha and Sree Sree Gobind as separate deities with independent worship practices.

The court concluded that the Tribunal was justified in finding that Sree Sree Radha Jew and Sree Sree Gobind Jew were two different deities having separate existence. Thus, question No. 1 was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee.

Issue 2: Separate Inclusion of Income from Property

Given the conclusion on the first issue, the second issue followed logically. The Tribunal held that the income from property should be included separately in the total income of the two deities, Sree Sree Radha Jew and Sree Sree Gobind Jew, under section 9(3) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. This conclusion was corroborated by the decision of the court in CIT v. Bhim Chandra Ghosh [1956] 30 ITR 46, which supported the separate assessment of income for distinct deities.

As question No. 1 was answered affirmatively, question No. 2 was also answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, confirming that the income from property should be included separately for the two deities.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the Tribunal's findings that the dedication was made in favor of two distinct deities, Sree Sree Radha Jew and Sree Sree Gobind Jew, and that the income from property should be included separately in their total income under section 9(3) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. There was no order as to costs.