1983 (6) TMI 60 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules temple committee's income non-taxable due to deity ownership

The Tribunal upheld the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision that the Mandir Parbandhkarni Committee, Jawalamukhi Temple, had no taxable income as ... Association Of Persons, Body Of Individuals Issues Involved:1. Determination of the taxable income of the Mandir Parbandhkarni Committee, Jawalamukhi Temple.2. Whether the income, if any, belongs to the deity or the committee.3. Classification of the committee as an Association of Persons (AOP) or Body of Individuals (BOI).4. Historical and customary rights of the Bhojikis families in the temple's offerings.5. Consistency of the revenue's position in similar cases.Detailed Analysis:1. Determination of the taxable income of the Mandir Parbandhkarni Committee, Jawalamukhi Temple:The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially assessed the income of the Mandir Parbandhkarni Committee, Jawalamukhi Temple, estimating gross receipts at Rs. 75,000 and computing the net income at Rs. 45,880 after deducting expenses and shares of the members. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) held that the committee had no taxable income as the income, if any, belonged to the deity.2. Whether the income, if any, belongs to the deity or the committee:The AAC concluded that the income from the temple offerings belonged to the deity, Jawalamukhi, and not to the committee. The revenue contested this, arguing that the committee, being in enjoyment of the full earnings from the profession, was liable to tax. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's view, emphasizing that the committee's role was purely managerial and honorary, and the offerings were made to the deity, not to the committee or its members.3. Classification of the committee as an Association of Persons (AOP) or Body of Individuals (BOI):The Tribunal analyzed whether the committee could be classified as an AOP or BOI. It referred to judicial precedents, including CIT v. Indira Balkrishna and Mohamed Noorullah v. CIT, to determine that an AOP requires a common purpose or action to produce income. The Tribunal found that the families performing puja did so individually and not as a joint effort. Additionally, some committee members were outsiders with no right to the offerings, further negating the classification as an AOP or BOI.4. Historical and customary rights of the Bhojikis families in the temple's offerings:The Tribunal detailed the historical and customary rights of the Bhojikis families, who have been performing puja and sharing the cash offerings for centuries. The gold ornaments and jewelry were retained for the deity and not distributed among the Bhojikis. The committee, consisting of members elected annually from the village, managed the temple's affairs and ensured proper allocation of shares among the Bhojikis. The Tribunal confirmed that the Bhojikis families, not the committee, inherited the right to the offerings by birth.5. Consistency of the revenue's position in similar cases:The Tribunal noted that for the assessment year 1972-73, the ITO had already held in favor of the assessee, confirming that the committee had no taxable income. This assessment had not been disturbed or canceled, and the Tribunal emphasized the importance of consistency in the revenue's views. The Tribunal also highlighted the AAC's reliance on old documents and historical records, which supported the conclusion that the committee had no taxable income.Conclusion:The Tribunal confirmed the AAC's detailed and well-reasoned order, holding that the Mandir Parbandhkarni Committee, Jawalamukhi Temple, had no taxable income as the income, if any, belonged to the deity. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal appreciated the AAC's judgment for its thoroughness and historical context.