Association of persons and temple income: joint management for offerings met the tax test, but the trust contention had to be considered.

Persons who jointly managed a temple and its appurtenant properties in a settled arrangement, regulated attendance by turns, and collectively attracted offerings from devotees were treated as an association of persons for income-tax purposes, because their common purpose and concerted exploitation of the temple as a source of income satisfied the statutory test. The Tribunal also erred in refusing to consider the contention that the temple income belonged to a public religious trust and was not assessable in their hands, since the assessees had succeeded before the lower appellate authority and were not required to file an appeal merely to challenge refusal to entertain that ground. The reference was thus answered partly against the assessees and partly in their favour.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessees constituted an association of persons liable to be assessed in respect of offerings received from the temple on festival and non-festival days; (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in declining to consider the assessees' contention that the temple income belonged to a public religious trust and was not assessable in their hands.

Issue (i): Whether the assessees constituted an association of persons liable to be assessed in respect of offerings received from the temple on festival and non-festival days.

Analysis: For the purposes of section 3 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, an association of persons exists where two or more persons join in a common purpose or common action with the object of producing income. The assessees were joint owners of the temple and its appurtenant properties, managed the temple together in accordance with a settled arrangement, regulated attendance by turns, and performed the religious and managerial functions to attract offerings from devotees. The allocation of days and the joint performance on festival days showed a concerted commercial arrangement for exploiting the temple as a source of income, and the turn-wise division on non-festival days did not destroy the common purpose.

Conclusion: The assessees were rightly treated as an association of persons in respect of offerings collected on both festival and non-festival days, and the answer was against the assessees.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in declining to consider the assessees' contention that the temple income belonged to a public religious trust and was not assessable in their hands.

Analysis: The assessees had raised the contention before the Tribunal in support of the relief already obtained before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal refused to consider it only on the ground that the assessees had not preferred an appeal against the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's refusal to entertain the additional ground. That reason was legally unsound because the assessees had succeeded before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and could not have appealed merely against the refusal to entertain the contention.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not justified in refusing to consider the contention, and the answer was in favour of the assessees.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered partly against the assessees on the status of assessment and partly in their favour on the Tribunal's refusal to entertain the public religious trust contention.

Ratio Decidendi: Persons who jointly manage and exploit a common source of income with a profit-making object constitute an association of persons, and a tribunal cannot refuse to consider a contention merely because no appeal was filed against the appellate authority's refusal to entertain that ground when the party had otherwise succeeded below.

---