9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (4) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... coming to Puri used to take his services for the purpose of their pilgrimage and he used to lodge them and feed them freely during their stay at Puri. As soon as the pilgrimage was completed they used to make payments which may be divided into two classes. Firstly, a small sum known as 'Pranami' was given by way of remuneration. This was admitted to be his private income assessable to income-ax. The second class consisted of payments made by pilgrims after the execution of a document known as 'Annadan Patra' by which the donor expressly stipulated that the sum should be utilised by the Panda for offering bhog to Lord Jagannath with a direction that after such offering of bhog, the Mahaprasad may be appropriated by the Panda and his family and also distributed to those pilgrims hailing from the home district of the donor who worship the Panda. It was found, as a fact, by the Income-tax Tribunal that with some of the surplus money derived from this source the Panda purchased zamindari and other landed property but the purchase was made in the name of Lord Jagannath and the Panda's family members were described as the marfatdars. On behalf of the assessee-petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the Income-tax authorities as well as from the judgment of the Division. Bench of this court in the application under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, that the 'Annadan Patra' alone was taken as embodying the terms of the grant. The entry in the Register appears to be merely an entry made by or under the direction of the Panda after the execution of the 'Annadan Patra' by the donors. It may be that some of the entries in the Annadan Register are signed by the pilgrims but in construing the legal effect of the grant we must attach greater importance to the Annadan Patra signed by donor himself. I would therefore completely ignore the entry in the Annadan Register and decide the case on the basis of the terms as embodied in the Annadan Patra. The material portions of sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Indian Income-tax Act may now be quoted : 4.(3) Any income, profits or gains falling within the following classes shall not be included in the total income of the person receiving them : (i)Subject to the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 16, any income derived from property held under a trust or other legal obligation solely f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his own benefit. Even if it be assumed (without deciding) that a religious trust was created for the main purpose of offering bhog to Lord Jagannath at Puri by the execution of the 'Annadan Patra', the essential question on which the assessability of this income to income-tax depends, is whether such a trust is a private religious trust or a public religious trust. If the assessee fails to show that it is a public religious trust, his claim for exemption must fail. The distinction between a public religious trust and a private religious trust is well-known. The last word on the subject, so far as this court is concerned, is found in the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Deoki Nandan v. Muralidhar [1956] SCR 756 where, after quoting Lewin on Trusts, Fifteenth Edition, pages 15-16, Venkatarama Ayyar, J., observed : The distinction between a private and a public trust is that whereas in the former the beneficiaries are specific individuals, in the latter they are the general public or a class thereof. While, in the former the beneficiaries are persons who are ascertained or capable of being ascertained, in the latter they constitute a large body which is incapabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lish law. These two decisions however will not help Mr. Mohanty very much. In the former decision, Evershed, M.R., observed, following the earlier decisions, In re Drummond [1914] 2 Ch. 90 and In re Compton [1945] Ch. 123, that the requirement of public interest in charitable trusts may not apply to the same extent in the case of charities for the relief of poverty, as it is in other cases. In the latter decision also the same principle was followed and Jenkins, L.J., laid down (at pages 648-649 of the report) the following propositions based on previous decisions: (i)It is a general rule that a trust or gift, in order to be charitable in the legal sense must be for the benefit of the public or some section of the public. (ii)An aggregate of individuals ascertained by reference to some personal tie (e.g. of blood or contract) such as the relations of a particular individual, the members of a particular family, the employees of a particular firm, the members of a particular association, does not amount to the public or a section thereof for the purpose of a general rule. (iii)It follows that according to the general rule above stated, a trust or gift under which the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ective or potential members of a particular denomination cannot make the class any the less a section of the public. In the instant case however it cannot be said that these persons hailing from the home district of the donor, who are jajmans of the Panda and who worship him, form a class or religious sect or denomination so as to become a section of the public. They are merely a collection of individuals who can be easily ascertained. I would, therefore, hold that the trust created by the 'Annadan Patra' is a purely private religious trust and the petitioner's income derived from this source is not exempt from income-tax under either clause (i) or clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Income-tax Act. The answer to the question posed by the Tribunal is in the affirmative. The petitions are dismissed with costs. Hearing fee ₹ 200 (Rupees two hundred only). Barman, J.-I have read the judgment of my Lord the Chief Justice and while fully agreeing with his conclusion that the answer to the question posed by the Tribunal must be in the affirmative, I should like to add and give my reasons in support of my Lord's views as expressed in his judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o a decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Indra Sen Raizada [1940] 8 ITR 187 where it was held that taxation under the Act is the rule and exemption the exception and that all income, from whatever source derived, must therefore be chargeable to income-tax and the burden of proving that a particular class of income is not so chargeable must necessarily lie on the person, claiming exemption from the liability to pay income-tax. Therefore, in the present case, it was for the assessee to prove that he was entitled to the benefit of the exemptions under the Act. Therefore, the main question for consideration is whether the income of the Panda was income derived from voluntary contributions and applicable solely to religious or charitable purposes. For this purpose, we have to consider the Annadan Patra by which the pilgrims used to make their contributions towards the Bhog of Lord Jagannath. In other words, the point is whether the Annadan Patra is capable of such interpretation as to make it a public trust for religious or charitable purposes. Whether the trust is public or private will have to be decided in each case with reference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the donors and that the voluntary contributions were not for the benefit of the Pandaji alone but applicable solely to religious or charitable purposes. I am afraid that I cannot accept this contention. In this connection I should like to refer to a Calcutta decision Prosaddas Pal v. Jagannath Pal [1933] ILR 60 Cal. 638. (C.C. Ghose, A.C.J., and Mitter, J.) where the question was whether a deed of endowment,-providing for Devasheva and, inter alia, for feeding of the poor and of the students, if the income increases,-did or did not make the endowment a private trust or a public trust. In that case, one of the main contentions before the High Court was whether the finding of the lower court that the endowment was partly a private trust and partly a public one was wrong whereas he should have held that it was a private and not a public charitable endowment. In the judgment delivered by His' Lordship Mr. Justice Dwarka Nath Mitter, it was observed as follows: ...It is argued that the provision that the whole of the income of the debutter property shall be wholly spent for the purposes of the debsheba and the feeding of the poor does not make the endowment a public charit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
