COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. PULIN BEHARI DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the Tribunal stating a case upon the following question :

(2.) TO appreciate the points involved in this case it will be necessary shortly to set out the facts. On 23rd March, 1893, one Madan Gopal Dey executed a deed of trust and by that deed he transferred certain properties to trustees for the maintenance and the worship of two deities, Thakur Harihar Prabhu and Thakurani Sachimata. It appears that Thakur Harihar Prabhu was a family idol which had been installed by the settlor's predecessors, but the Thakurani had been installed by the settlor himself. This appears clear from the will made by the settlor's wife shortly afterwards to which reference will be made later.

(3.) FOR the asst. yr. 1942-43 the ITO held that the maximum rate should be applied to the income of the two deities as in his opinion the individual shares of the deities were indeterminate and unknown and, therefore, they were not entitled to claim the benefit given by sub-s. (1) of S. 41 of the Indian IT Act. This decision, however, was reversed by the AAC and his view was upheld by the Tribunal-both the latter holding that in law the deities were given this income in equal shares.