COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. DWARKA DHEESH TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case stated to us under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessee is a temple known as the Shri Dwarka Dheesh Temple of Cawnpore and the assessments which are brought into question are those for the assessment years 1939-40, 1940-41 and 1941-42.

(2.) IN the interval of time between 1887 and now, the fund, of which the original Rs. 17,000 is now part, has multiplies itself many times over and we are told that it is now represented by a sum of several lakhs of rupees whether in money, property or investments and it is with the income of this substantial fund that we are now concerned. To put the matter shortly, the income is received by certain members of the original settlors family as trustees and the INcome-tax authorities now claim that this income is taxable.

(3.) NOW, those are the facts before us. The Income-tax department, which in this case is the applicant, makes a point of the circumstances that the instrument of 1887 is silent as to whether this trust is a public or a private trust. It is true that it is not stated in so many words in the document itself whether the trust is a public or private one and there is no presumption one way or the other. When we look, however, at the course of events during the intervening fifty years stated as facts in the case now before us, no doubt can possibly be left in anybodys mind but that there was ample evidence upon what the Income-tax Officer could have concluded, as the Tribunal has now concluded, that this was a public, and not a private trust. We have pressed hard by Mr. Pathak to go behind the statements of facts set out in the statement of the case by the Appellate Tribunal. The suggestion is that if we were to do this, we might find other facts which might or might not shake the conclusions of fact stated to us. As a matter of principle we do not think that any jurisdiction is entrusted to us by Section 66 of the Income-tax Act either to go behind or to questions statements of fact made by the Appellate Tribunal in the statement of a case. Our only jurisdiction is that, if in any case we are not satisfied that the statements contained in the statement of the case are sufficient to enable us to determine the question raised by it, we have power to send it back to the Appellate Tribunal for a second statement of facts. Here it is impossible to say that the facts as stated in the statement of the case were insufficient to have enabled the Income-tax Officer to conclude that the trust in this case was from the beginning, and is now, a public trust. That is sufficient to dispose of the matter upon the ground that this religious trust is not a private one at all but it is a public one. Even if this had been so, the findings of the Appellate Tribunal would still have been ample to show that the income of the trust, whether public or private, enures for the benefit of the public. For these reasons we answer the question put to us by saying that the assessee temple is a public religious trust, and, as such, is exempt from taxation in respect of the income derived from the trust in question by virtue of Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act.