SRIDHAR JIEW Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts in these appeals are briefly as follows : By an arpannamah (deed of dedication) dated the 17th Baisakh, 1303 B. S. (the 28th April, 1896), Srimati Kadambini Dassi and Sri Purno Chandra Daw, respectively, the widow and the son of late Shibkrishna Daw, for selves and as executrix and executor to the estate of late Haridas Daw, created a debutter endowment in respect of their family dwelling should at 12, Shibkristo Daw Lane, Jorasanko, Calcutta, in which the ancestral family deity Sri Sri Sridhar Jiew was installed and other immovable properties including debalaya (temple) on the banks of the Ganges at village Barrackpur, now known as Barrackpore, in which the deities, Radharaman Jiew and Sridhar Jiew Salgram, and six images of Shiva had been enshrined. The said debutter is collectively described as "Shib Krishna Debutter" and the estate is known as the Shib Krishna Debutter Estate. The present shebait of the said deities, in terms of the said arpannamah, is Pulin Chandra Daw. For the asst. yrs. 1952-53 to 1956-57, the ITO, District II(I), Calcutta, assessed the income arising out of the said debutter properties, in the hands of the said Pulin Chandra Daw, as shebait. The said assessments were challenged before the appellate authorities and ultimately, before the Tribunal, Calcutta. By the decisions of the said Tribunal dt. 23rd Sept., 1960, the appeals were partially successful, inasmuch as it was held that, so far as income under the head "property" was concerned, it could not be assessed in the hands of the shebait under s. 9 of the IT Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"), inasmuch as the shebaits were not the owners of the debutter properties. On or about the 15th March, 1961, five joint notices were issued on the two deities, Sri Sri Sridhar Jiew and Radharaman Jiew, represented by their shebait Sri Pulin Chandra Daw, under s. 34 of the said Act, stating that the ITO, District II(I), Calcutta, had reason to believe that the income of the said deities assessable to Income-tax had escaped assessment and they were, therefore, required to file a return for the said years under s. 34 of the said Act. To these notices the deities, through their shebait, Sri Pulin Chandra Daw, took objection.

(2.) ONE of the points taken in the letter of objection was that the said Act did not contemplate assessment of the income of a deity and, during the relevant years, the deities were excluded from the operation of the said Act and, therefore, the notices were without jurisdiction and void. As the Revenue did not desist, applications were made by the said two deities represented by their shebait, Sri Pulin Chandra Daw, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, paying for a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent from giving effect to the said notices and that the said notices be quashed by a writ in the nature of certiorari and for such other order or orders as to the Court may seem fit and proper. Rules were issued in these applications and the five applications were heard by Banerjee J. who, by his judgment and order dt. 13th Sept., 1962 (Sri Sri Sridhar Jiew vs. ITO (1963) 50 ITR 480), dismissed the said applications and discharged the rules, but made no order as to costs.

(3.) IN this sub-section, 'charitable purpose' includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief and the advancement of any other object of general public utility, but nothing contained in cl.