TMI Blog1956 (2) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bala Tripura Sundari, was not assessable in the hands of the assessee? The facts giving rise to the reference are as follows: The assessee installed a deity, Sree Bala Tripura Sundari, in a temple in Purnea City, and for the performance of the worship of the deity he allotted a sum of ₹ 200 per month out of his income from a fair known as Gulabbagh Hat. He also allotted a sum of ₹ 1,000 per year for the repairs and maintenance of the temple, which sum too, was payable from the income of that fair. The assessee created a legal obligation on himself by executing a deed of dedication in favour of the deity on the 23rd May, 1947, in which the details of the amounts dedicated were given, and it was stipulated as follows: I, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Court. The main argument of Mr. S.K. Mazumdar, appearing on behalf of the assessee, is that, as a legal obligation had been created and the income from the Gulabbagh Hat settled on trust in favour of the deity, the expense incurred for maintenance of the temple was exempt from taxation. The argument so advanced has to be judged in the light of the provisions of section 4, sub-section 3(i), of the Income-tax Act. This clause, as it stood before, runs as follows: Any income derived from property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for religious or charitable purposes and in the case of a property so held in part only for such purposes, the income applied or finally set apart for application thereto. If the provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y assistance to the assessee. In that case, the step-mother of the assessee had obtained a decree for maintenance and by virtue of the right she claimed a share in the income, being a member of a Hindu undivided family. It was held by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee that the income which was given to the lady was never the income of the assessee. It was the allocation of a sum out of revenue before it became income in his hands. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab v. Thakur Dass Bhargava[1953] 24 I.T.R. 275] a trust for the sum of ₹ 32,500 was already created by an agreement between the assessee and the other party, who happened to be an accused and their relatives, in a case in which the assessee agreed to act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon a charitable trust and that the exemption is only conferred upon income which is derived from property which is settled upon the charitable trust. It was also held that it was not sufficient for a person to make a trust of his future income to claim exemption under section 4(3)(i) and unless the property from which that income was derived was also made the subject of a trust, the mere making of a trust with regard to the income would not be sufficient to claim exemption under section 4(3)(i). Therefore, as the commission derived by the managing agents was not from the trust fund, the income that came to their hands by utilising rupees one lakh kept as security for their agency was not free from taxation. In the case of A. Eggar v. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of such income is in his hands is he in a position to discharge that obligation. It follows, accordingly that the sum so collected is income of the assessee in the first instance and is, therefore, attracted to tax. It has then to be examined if the provisos to section 16(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act are attracted to the facts of this case. In my view, they do not, for the simple reason that the assets from which the temple is to be maintained remain the property of the assessee and a part of the income from these assets is applied for an obligation created by the assessee himself. I find, therefore, that the income in the sum of ₹ 2,051 was not received under the deed of dedication to the deity and, therefore, it is assessable in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|