GURU ESTATE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE S. J. Cs were heard analogously at the special request of the parties and are dealt with in one judgment. They all arise out of the statements or two cases under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income Tax Act made by the Income-Tax appellate Tribunal, in pursuance of the directions given in two Bench decisions of this Court in S. J. Cs Nos. 42, 43, 44 and 45 of 1954 and 6 of 1953. The parties are the same and the sole question for decision is whether the disputed income is exempt from income tax on the ground that it is income applicable only for public religious purposes.

(2.) THE petitioner-assessee is one of the important Pandas attached to the Temple of Lord Jagannath at Puri, Pilgrims from distant parts of India like the Punjab, uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, etc. , while 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-tax. The second class consisted of payments made by the pilgrims after the execution of a document known as 'annodan 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 the Mahaprasad may be appropriated by the Panda and his family and also distributed to these pilgrims hailing from the home district of the donor who worship the Panda. It was found, as a fact, by the Income-Tax Appellate 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 murfatdars. On behalf of the assessee-petitioner, therefore, it was contended that this sum was totally exempted from income-tax by virtue, of Clauses (i) and (ii) of Sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Indian Income-tax Act being either in the nature of income derived from property held under a religious trust or income of a religious institution derived from voluntary public contributions.

(3.) BEFORE discussing the legal questions involved in these cases, I may dispose of one preliminary objection, raised by Mr. R. Mohanty on behalf of the petitioner against the finding of the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered that the 'annadan patra' alone was sufficient document to he taken into consideration for the purpose of ascertaining the terms of the donations made by the pilgrims. The petitioner wanted to include, in the documents filed by him, an extract from his 'annadan Register" containing full particulars about the names of the donors, and the amounts paid by them, both by way of 'pranami' and by way of 'anna dan'. The Tribunal however rejected this prayer saying that that Register was quite irrelevant. There is a very material difference between the terms of the 'annadan Patra' and the entry in the 'annadan Register' regarding the purpose for which the money was given to the Panda. According to the 'annadan Patra' the money was to be utilised in offering bhog to Lord Jagannath and then the Mahaprasad may be appropriated by the Panda and also distributed to those jajmans of the Panda hailing from the home district of the donor, who worship him. Thus the beneficiaries are clearly specified by this document. In Annadan Register, on the other hand, the terms of the grant are recited as follows : "the sum should be spent in offering bhog to Lord Jagannath and the mahaprasad may then be distributed amongst the Pandas and all pilgrims (sab-yatrionnka)". According to the Register, therefore the beneficiaries are not only the Panda's family but all pilgrims in Puri. It does not appear that before the lower authorities the plea that all pilgrims of Puri were entitled to the Mahaprasad irrespective of whether they belonged to the home district of the donor and irrespective of their being the jajmans of this Panda and worshipping him, was put forward relying on the aforesaid entry in the Annadan Register. On the other hand, I find from the judgments 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 Annandan 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 the 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.