# )) THE OFFICIAL TRUSTEEOFWESTBENGAL FOR THE TRUST OF CHITRA DASSI v. C.T.T WEST BENGAL, CALCUTTA Dect•mbrr 4, 1973

- **Citation:** [1974] 2 S.C.R. 583
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 2358-2366 or 1963 & 1174, 1288- 1299 of 1971
- **Bench:** t\.1'1. RAY, C.J. H. R. KHANNA K. K. MATHew, A. AtAGIRISWAMI, P. N. Dhagwati
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-official-trusteeofwestbengal-for-the-trust-of-chitra-dassi-v-c-t-t-west-6174
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

/ncomt·ttn: Act (II o/1922), s. 3-'lllllividuo/', i/illclrtdf1 a Hindll d•ity
OD chequescion whe!her a Hindu deicy is an 'individual' within the mean in~: of.
!Nt word under the provisions of the Income
tax Act, 1922.
HELD :A Hindu deity falls wi!ltin the meaning oft he'"'' d 'ir.di,·idu' r in>. 3 .
>Jtdt'n belre>!edasaunitofassessment. lt\\Oul<l no tutoll~~c ta,d tt.JCl[hit>
sheb:lits "ho arc in possession and manogfmcnc cf its pt<pelly.
(!8i-Cj
Ala rc<ult of the decision of !he Domb:ty High Court in CJ.T. v. Ahmuiabod ·
MiiiO••tttrs,Assxiation, 7 J.T.R. 369chat 'individuar ins. 3 ofche lnccrr.e!ox Act . .
1921, must nu:an a human being, !he Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1939,: mcr.dco
lhe '1\"0rds wassoci<ltion of individuals'' in the section iOIO •'assccJaaicn Of ('tr!Cn5··;.
butlhe "ord'individual', being the first of !he six assessable unil5 rn<ntioncd Jl\ the
settion, was retainrd and w:ls. not amended inao •person·~ lt was not ch3r.Ztd
IIllo "penon" because the word 'person' is of wider imrort ardincludc> any ccrr-r' r.J
orl5soci;tion or body of individuals'' hethcr incorporated or not. So, a .. ord h2d
to be chosen " •hich "ould not carry Wilh it !he "ider import or the word 'pet~cn··
111d the word 'ind"·iduol' ""''retained. After !he amendment, it WDs !'tinted ~ut
by tlrisCourt rn Commi.uioner of l11~om~ tax v. Soclro Dcri(J! J.T.R . 615) tb.:tt tl'c
•"Drd 'iD~t•iduaJ' not onlY means 11 h uman be in&. but also ;ncludes a corporoticn
<1<21<d by a St3tUle. A Hindu deitY ;. II juristic person capoble or holdtr>g ~·C- .
Peny, As it can hold properly nnd be in receipt o r inccme and con abo sue ord te
tll(d In; coun of taw the1e is no rcuson why its income should be held t? l'C out• ·
ude the ambit of ta.ntion since it can be brought within il withoul stroon1rg the
l•nsu•re of the statutory provision. [586E-H; 587B-q
·
JorwlrqSoth Naskor v. Comr. o[lncamc·lax( !969) 74,1.T.R. 33 (S.C.), rollo"·cd ..
Contml.uio~r of l11come tax v. Solt'lll Dlstrirt Urbclll Bank Ltd. ~ l.T.R. 269:
Cumnv.o} "'a>tn<·tax v. Oar Cotmcll, J2,J.T.R. I. Sir C11rrimhltoy Ebrahtm JJoronrtr)
r,.,t v. C>nunr. of lt~come ·tax, S. l.T,l:, ~84, referred to.
I.T.C. v. /uiJt~~dra Nath, A.l.R. I96S Cal. SiO and Sri Sru!lw v. l.T. Offirtr.
A.l.R. 1966 C:U. 494, approved.
Cti'IL APPI'LLATE JuniSDICTIOS : Civil Appeals Nos. 2358-2366
or 1963 & 1174, 1288- 1299 of 1971.
From the judgment and Order dated the 4th Januury, 1966 of the
Cah:utta High Court in Income Tax Rcfcren.:c N0. 25 of 1968·
Ch~utJhulltum Cftullerjt:l!, P. K. Cltakramrrlry and Prod.t·ot
Kullt<tr·
rarartfty, for the appellant.
Y. S. DfJui, S. K . Alrer and R .N. Suchtltt:y. for the rcspond~nl.
The Judgmclll of th~ Court was ddiwn:d by
a AUGIRISWA~tr J The question that uriscs for decision in lh~sc ·
o~~~ls is whet he; a Hindu deity is un "indi\'idual" wilhittth~ n;e~~~?g ·
ltarj~ v.ord under the provisions of the Indianinconte-ta~ cn;tmb; ;
or rere s out of the judgment of th~ High Court of Cf:kut.ta t~:Ssary for·
lbe <k:.e?ces .under section 66(1) of the Act. Th7 :~~lsl~~O ot;e Smt-
~S•on, 111 a short compass, an: these : In th~ Y•·'r
-
'584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1974] 2 s.c .a.
·Chitra Dassi executed a11 Ekrarnama making a ~ift of a piece f 1
for religious purposes. In 1842 she executed a will referring to 1~ ~nd
that she bad earlier made the property de butter and directed he e ~act
sons the executors, to perform the daily service of Sri Radhagobi~d~ur
·she died in 1855. In 1876 a suit was filed in the Calcutta High o;ee.
praying that the trust should be administered by the court and a sche urt
prepared. Subsequently, there were a number of applications m:
'from time to time and a !l~mbe~ of orders were also made on them.
In 1929 a scheme of admm1strat10n was framed and a little later the
·Official Trustee of Bengal was appointed to be the trustt!c of the said
debuttcr estate. After the oflicial trustee took possession of the properties he was assessed in respect of the income of the debuuer
e

## Text

0
))
THE OFFICIAL TRUSTEEOFWESTBENGAL
FOR THE TRUST OF CH!TRA DASSI
v.
C.T.T WEST BENGAL, CALCUTTA
Dect•mbrr 4, 1973
[t\.1'1. RAY, C.J. H. R. KHANNA K. K. MATHew, A. AtAGIRISWAMI:
AND P. N. DHAGWATI, JJ.}
/ncomt·ttn: Act (II o/1922), s. 3-'lllllividuo/', i/illclrtdf1 a Hindll d•ity
OD chequescion whe!her a Hindu deicy is an 'individual' within the mean in~: of.
!Nt word under the provisions of the Income
tax Act, 1922.
HELD :A Hindu deity falls wi!ltin the meaning oft he'"'' d 'ir.di,·idu' r in>. 3 .
>Jtdt'n belre>!edasaunitofassessment. lt\\Oul<l no tutoll~~c ta,d tt.JCl[hit>
sheb:lits "ho arc in possession and manogfmcnc cf its pt<pelly.
(!8i-Cj
Ala rc<ult of the decision of !he Domb:ty High Court in CJ.T. v. Ahmuiabod ·
MiiiO••tttrs,Assxiation, 7 J.T.R. 369chat 'individuar ins. 3 ofche lnccrr.e!ox Act . .
1921, must nu:an a human being, !he Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1939,: mcr.dco
lhe '1\"0rds wassoci<ltion of individuals'' in the section iOIO •'assccJaaicn Of ('tr!Cn5··;.
butlhe "ord'individual', being the first of !he six assessable unil5 rn<ntioncd Jl\ the
settion, was retainrd and w:ls. not amended inao •person·~ lt was not ch3r.Ztd
IIllo "penon" because the word 'person' is of wider imrort ardincludc> any ccrr-r' r.J
orl5soci;tion or body of individuals'' hethcr incorporated or not. So, a .. ord h2d
to be chosen " •hich "ould not carry Wilh it !he "ider import or the word 'pet~cn··
111d the word 'ind"·iduol' ""''retained. After !he amendment, it WDs !'tinted ~ut
by tlrisCourt rn Commi.uioner of l11~om~ tax v. Soclro Dcri(J! J.T.R . 615) tb.:tt tl'c
•"Drd 'iD~t•iduaJ' not onlY means 11 h uman be in&. but also ;ncludes a corporoticn
<1<21<d by a St3tUle. A Hindu deitY ;. II juristic person capoble or holdtr>g ~·C- .
Peny, As it can hold properly nnd be in receipt o r inccme and con abo sue ord te
tll(d In; coun of taw the1e is no rcuson why its income should be held t? l'C out• ·
ude the ambit of ta.ntion since it can be brought within il withoul stroon1rg the
l•nsu•re of the statutory provision. [586E-H; 587B-q
·
JorwlrqSoth Naskor v. Comr. o[lncamc·lax( !969) 74,1.T.R. 33 (S.C.), rollo"·cd ..
Contml.uio~r of l11come tax v. Solt'lll Dlstrirt Urbclll Bank Ltd. ~ l.T.R. 269:
Cumnv.o} "'a>tn<·tax v. Oar Cotmcll, J2,J.T.R. I. Sir C11rrimhltoy Ebrahtm JJoronrtr)
r,.,t v. C>nunr. of lt~come ·tax, S. l.T,l:, ~84, referred to.
I.T.C. v. /uiJt~~dra Nath, A.l.R. I96S Cal. SiO and Sri Sru!lw v. l.T. Offirtr.
A.l.R. 1966 C:U. 494, approved.
Cti'IL APPI'LLATE JuniSDICTIOS : Civil Appeals Nos. 2358-2366
or 1963 & 1174, 1288- 1299 of 1971.
From the judgment and Order dated the 4th Januury, 1966 of the
Cah:utta High Court in Income Tax Rcfcren.:c N0. 25 of 1968·
Ch~utJhulltum Cftullerjt:l!, P. K. Cltakramrrlry and Prod.t·ot
Kullt<tr·
rarartfty, for the appellant.
Y. S. DfJui, S. K . Alrer and R .N. Suchtltt:y. for the rcspond~nl.
The Judgmclll of th~ Court was ddiwn:d by
a AUGIRISWA~tr J The question that uriscs for decision in lh~sc ·
o~~~ls is whet he; a Hindu deity is un "indi\'idual" wilhittth~ n;e~~~?g ·
ltarj~ v.ord under the provisions of the Indianinconte-ta~ cn;tmb; ;
or rere s out of the judgment of th~ High Court of Cf:kut.ta t~:Ssary for·
lbe <k:.e?ces .under section 66(1) of the Act. Th7 :~~lsl~~O ot;e Smt-
~S•on, 111 a short compass, an: these : In th~ Y•·'r
-
'584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1974] 2 s.c .a.
·Chitra Dassi executed a11 Ekrarnama making a ~ift of a piece f 1
for religious purposes. In 1842 she executed a will referring to 1~ ~nd
that she bad earlier made the property de butter and directed he e ~act
sons the executors, to perform the daily service of Sri Radhagobi~d~ur
·she died in 1855. In 1876 a suit was filed in the Calcutta High o;ee.
praying that the trust should be administered by the court and a sche urt
prepared. Subsequently, there were a number of applications m:
'from time to time and a !l~mbe~ of orders were also made on them.
In 1929 a scheme of admm1strat10n was framed and a little later the
·Official Trustee of Bengal was appointed to be the trustt!c of the said
debuttcr estate. After the oflicial trustee took possession of the properties he was assessed in respect of the income of the debuuer
estate in tlle status of an "individual" under section 41 of the Act. In
respect of the assessment years 1939-40 to 1942-43 a reference was
made under section 66(2) of the Act. A Bench of the Calcutta High
C
Court
held
that
upon a proper constntction of the relevant
·documents
and the
scheme
sanctioned
ami
orders
passed
by the High Court the property should be held to be a religious trust.
The matter again went up to the High Court in respect of the assessment years 1943-44 to 1951-52. Three questions finally came to be
.con~idcred by the High Court :
D
Q.l Whether upon a proper construction of the
relevant documents executed by Smt. Chitra Dassi and the
rdcvant
'ch~'IDes
sanctioned and orders passed by
the High Court, there was a trust in fa\our ofthe
Deity or whether there was a dedication of the properties
to the Deity ?
Q.2 Alternali,•ely, if the dedication to th~ Thakur
<:anstitute trust, is it a religious trust which dic.l no! enure to
the benefit of the public ?
Q.3 Is the Thakur RaJha Gobinda Jew liable to assessmenl under the Indian Income-tax Act ?
<?n question N~. I the High Court beld that upon a prop_cr ~';tt~
'TUCL1on of the relevant documents executed by Chitra Das~ lane uri
Tclevaot Schemes sanctioned and orders pas~c:d by the H•g 1
~,-a1
ihcre Was. a dedication Of the properties IO the d.:ity, but that th~re the
no t~ust m the technical sense, that is to say. u Ultd~rstood 1nlfti,s
Enghsb law. ~~~respect of the Jirst part of the 2nJ .questton bo~·~rust"
~fore the H1gh Court agreed that in thnt questiOn the \\Of
High
·dll.l not mean n trust in the te.:hnical or the En~:! ish sense. The ·till
·Court pointed out that it has be~n held that a dedication is 8 ~rd> in
the .general sen;e within the meaning of the expression ~~ ~~ .. cJO
·•cctlons. 4, 40 a~d 41 of the Income-tax Act and the word tr
11estion
?e appiled to Hmdu endowment~. On the second p;trl of the q docu·
ut was held t.hat :he endowment is a private religious trust and tb~rs of
ments c~c:atmg 1t or confirming it grant 110 bt!netit to the rne!!l whi,b
•the pubhc, that an order made by the CakuttOI High Court bY
£
F
.. :-;;· __
-.:.-~_66 ·~
~-- ~-- · .
oFfiCIAL TRUSTEE V. C·J.T. (Alagiriswami, J.)
c
I
I
[
c
II
!'
585
. directions were given for feeding t!1e poor, was the on! .
certat~n wb.ich a benefit enured to the pub he. As regards the 3rd Y znst~cethe High Court elaborately discussed whether the deity cou't:f_C~
flO~ to be an "individual" and held that the deity was liable to assess-
~ent under the Income-tax Act.
Before this ~ourt ~he only point a~gucd was whether tbe High
. Court was right tn c~mJDg to the concl!!ston ~hat the deity is an "indtvidual". When the Hig~ ~ourt de.alt Wtth t_hts question it did not have
the benefit of the dcctston of thts Court tn Jogendra Nath Na:skar v
CoiiUIJr. of ]llcome-rax_ (1969-74 lfR 33) wherein it was hdd that;
Hindu ddly falls wtthtn the mca.niOg of the word "individual" in section 3 and can be treated as a untt of assessment. Mr. Chatterjee arguing for the appellant urged that thn_t dcci.sion was wrong an<.! should
be reconsidered. We find ourselves tn enure agreement with the decision of this Court referred to above. We shall, however, state our
re~sons within a short compass.
It was conceded before us on behalf of the appellant that if the
word used had been a "person" instead of an "individual" the deity
would be a person because a person will include a juristic person. That
a Hindu deity is a juristic person is a well established proposition and
b~ been so for a long time. In Maharanee Sltibessouree Debia v.
Mothooranath Acharjo (1869 13 MIA 270) it was observed ;
"The Talook itself, with which these Jimmas were
connected by tenure, was dedicated to the religious services
of the Idol. The rents constitut~d. therefore, in kgal contemplation, its property. The Sabait had not the legal
property, but only the title of Manager of a rdigious
endowment."
In ProSUflllo Kumari Debya v. Golab Chand Baboo (1875 LR 2 IA.
1145) the above observations were cited with npproval. In Mano!Jar
Ga11tsh v. Lakluniram (1887 ILR 12 ·Born. 247) a Division Bench of.
the Bombay High Court obserwd :
"The Hindu taw like the Roman law and those derived
from it, recognises, ~ot only corporate bodies w!th. rig_h~s
of property vested in the corporation apart from tts tn~tvt
dua! members, but also the juridical perso_ns or subjects
called foundations . •••. . it is consistent wtth the. grants
having been made to the juridical persott symbolized or
personified in the idol .. . ••. "
'[·The Madra~ High Court in Vid;·opurno Tirtha Sll'am~ v. Vidyanidlu:
ITtha:swumt (1904 JLR 27 Mad. 435) e:tprc~scd the VtcW :
"It is to give due clfcct to such a sentiment, wid.:spread
and decprootcd ns it has alw<tys been. witll rcfcren.ce ~~
tomething not cnpabl~: of holding property ns a n~tur d
""rs
1
'
-
Jtave sanctton~
r- on, t tat the laws of most countncs
. . r d
the crc~tion of n fictitious person in the mntter, as ts unp te
--- ----~---
'586
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
{1974] 2 s.c.n.
in the felicitous observation made in the work already cited.
'Perhaps the oldest of all juristic persons is the God, her~
or the saint."
In Pramatha Nath i'.fullif'k l'. Pracl)'lmma Kumar Mullick ( 1925 LR
:52 lA 245 ; AIR 1925 PC 139) the Privy Council observed ;
"A Hindi idol is, according to long established authority founded upon the religious customs of the Hindus, and
the recognition thereof by courts of law, a 'juristic entity'.
It has a juridical status with the power of suing and being
sued. Its interests arc attended to by the person who has
the deity in his charge and \\ho is in law its manager v.ith
;~ll the powers \\hich would, in such circumstances, on
analogy, be given to the manager of the estate or an infant
heir. It is unnecessary to quote the authorities ; fnr this
doctrine, thus simply stated, is firmly cstab!ishcd."
The authorities thus amply est;tblish that a Hindu deity is a juristic
-~rson capable of holding property.
Reference was made to the decision in C. l. T. v. Alrmeclabad .\fill
..()u·ners' A.uocialian (7 ITR 369) v.hcrc Beaumont, C. J. held :
"Individual" where Iir~t used, must mean human being,
bc~ausc it is used as something distinct from a joint family.
firm and company. The whole expression seems to me to
mean "every human being, Hindu undivided family, company,
firm and other association of huma n beings."
Though in consequence of this decision the Income-tax (Amendment)
Act, 1939 amended the words "assoc.:iation of individuals" into "association of persons". the word "individual" being first of the six assess-
.able units mentioned in section 3 was retained and w:ts not amended
into "person". It could not be changed into "person" for the obvious
·reason that the 1\ord "person" is of wider import and includes any
company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated
or not. So a word had to be chosc11, \\ hich \•ould not carry with it
the wider import of the word "person" nod the \\Ord "individual"
appears to ha\'e been chosen. In Cor~~missioner or Income-tax v. Sodra
lJl'l'l (32 ITR 615) it was pointed out that the word "individual'' not
-only means a human being but also includes a corporation created by
a statute. e. g. a
University, or a Bar Council or th~ trustees or a
Daronctcy trust, im;(lrporatcu by a Baronetcy Act (See the decisions
·in
CorrmriSJiorru
of
lrrcoure-ta:r; v. Salt!m
District
Urball
.Bank Ud. 8 ITR :69 : COI!IIIIissiorr('r of Income-tax v. n., Cormfi~.
12 ITR 1 : and Str CurrlmiJIJoy Ebrahim Baronetcy Trust v. Comnu·
.sslom•r of IJJcorrrt'·tux, S lTC 4~4), Gut Dass J, obo;erved :
·
" .. :· ... there is no dillicuhy \1 lwtsoewr in my opinion, in
g•vJng the word 'individual' its natural meaning, that is,
that the word means citbcr a male or a fcnwlc."
llut the co.~;t in !hat :~Sc was not cor1ccrned with the probl.:m \~~cth~r
the word mdtvtdual c;tn refer to a juridical entity. Mukharjt J. of
u
c
.,
D
E
F
tl
...
OFFICIAL TRUSTEE v. C·I.T. (A.[agiriswami, /,)
58.7
·"-
the Calcutta High Court in J. T. Commr. 1'. Jvgendra Natlr (AIR I96S
Cal. 570) held that a Hindu deity can be either an individual or a person
or both. The same High Court in Sri Sridhar 1'./. T. Officer (AIR 1966
Cal. 494) held that a Hindu idol is a juristic entity who is given the
status of a human being capable of having property and it can be called
an "individual".
8
c
We are of opinion that as a Hindu deity can hold property and be
in receipt of income and can also sue and be sued in a court of Jaw
there is no reason why its income should be held to be outside the ambit of taxation if it can be brought within it without straining the language of the statutory provision. It would natural~ be taxed through
its shebaits who are in possessiort and managemei.lt of its property.
We may. however, mention that the problem whether the Hindu deity
is an individual is not likely to arise after the enactment of Income-tax
Act, 1961 which in clause 31 of section 2 defines a "person" as including
(i) an individual, (ii) a Hindu undivided family. (iii) a company, (iv)
a firm, (v) an assoCiation of persons or a body of individuals, whether
incorporated or not, (vi) a local authority. and (vii) every artificial·
juridical person, not falling within any of the preceding sub-clauses.
The appeals are dismissed with costs.
V.P.S
Appeals dismissed.