Hindu deity as juristic person: income-tax charge and recovery machinery can extend to a shebait.

A Hindu deity was treated as a juristic person falling within "individual" for charging income-tax under section 3 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, because the term was not confined to a natural human being. The court also construed "trustee" in section 41(1) broadly, holding that a shebait performs analogous functions in managing a Hindu religious endowment and may be used as the machinery for assessment and recovery of the deity's income, including return filing on the deity's behalf. On that basis, the reassessment notices were held to be within jurisdiction and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Hindu deity is an "individual" chargeable to income-tax under section 3 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. (ii) Whether section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 applies to a shebait so as to provide machinery for assessment and recovery of tax on the deity's income.

Issue (i): Whether a Hindu deity is an "individual" chargeable to income-tax under section 3 of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: The expression "individual" in the charging provision was held not to be confined to a natural human being. A Hindu idol is a juristic entity capable of holding property and receiving income in law, and its affairs are managed through the shebait. The earlier position regarding exemption of private religious trusts did not establish that deities were outside the charging section altogether, and the subsequent legislative development was treated as consistent with their chargeability.

Conclusion: A Hindu deity is within the ambit of "individual" under section 3 and is chargeable to income-tax.

Issue (ii): Whether section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 applies to a shebait so as to provide machinery for assessment and recovery of tax on the deity's income.

Analysis: The word "trustee" in section 41(1) was construed in a broad sense. A shebait, though not a trustee in the technical English law sense, performs functions analogous to a trustee in relation to a Hindu religious endowment. The provision was therefore treated as containing sufficient machinery to assess and recover tax from the shebait in respect of the deity's income, including by the prescribed return being signed on behalf of the deity.

Conclusion: Section 41(1) applies to a shebait and furnishes the necessary machinery for taxation of the deity's income.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment notices were within jurisdiction and the challenge failed; the appeals were dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Income-tax Act, 1922, a Hindu deity is a juristic person falling within "individual" for charging purposes, and the term "trustee" in section 41(1) extends to a shebait, enabling assessment and recovery through that machinery.

---