VAHIWATDARS OF AMBAJI TEMPLE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is an ancient temple of Ambaji Mata at Surat which was originally founded by a person named Premji Bhatt. He managed the temple, attended to the adornment of the deity and the performance of the puja and allowed the members of the public to visit the temple and to have darshan of the deity. Whatever offerings were made to the deity by the people visiting the temple were collected by him and retained by him as his income. In course of time, the temple passed to his descendants by inheritance and during the account years ended 31st March 1950, to 31st March, 1957, being the previous years for the assessment years 1950 -51 to 1957 -58, the following five persons who are assessees before us claimed to be the owner of the temple in the following share : Rs. As. Ps.1. Shantilal Parvatishanker ... 0 -4 - 02. Shushila Jayashanker ... 0 -6 - 03. Jamiatram Vishushanker ... 0 -2 - 04. Sharda Ochhavalal ... 0 -2 - 05. Dhanlaxmi Manalal ... 0 -2 - 0

(2.) THE assessee performed the aforesaid functions in regard to the temple and claimed to be entitled to the offerings made to the deity in the aforesaid shares. Of the assessee, three were ladies. For the purpose of sharing the offerings which might be made to the deity, what is known as vara system, i.e., the system by turns, was followed by the assessees. Under this system, each assessee attended the temple as pujari by turns during the particular days allotted to him by casting lots and collected the offerings to the deity during that period and such offerings were retained by him as his own income. The number of days allotted to each assessee in a period of two months depended on the share to which he was entitled. On the days allotted to him, each assessee managed and looked after the temple, attended to the adornment of the deity, performed the puja and did all other things required in connection with the temple and collected the offerings made to the deity as his own individual income. The ladies, of course, did not attend the temple personally, but at the time of their turn some male members performed the duties on their behalf and also collected the offerings made to the deity on their behalf. On festival days, the number of devotees visiting the temple would naturally be much larger than on the other days and, consequently, the extent and value of the offerings do the deity would also be much larger and all the assessees, therefore, attended the temple on those days, looked after the adornment of the deity and the performance of the puja, collected the offerings made to the deity and shared them in the aforesaid proportions to which they were entitled. The ladies were also given their share of the offering even though they did not attend the temple on the festival days.

(3.) THE revenue thereupon carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the assessees sought to sustain the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the ground decided against the assessees, namely, that the offerings to the deity constituted the income of a public religious trust and not the income of the assessees either as individuals or as an association of persons and arguments were heard upon this ground. But when the Tribunal ultimately came to make its order in the appeals, the Tribunal omitted to deal with this ground. On the question whether the assessees constituted an association of persons or not, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the revenue and held that the assessees were liable to be assessed as an association of persons and were rightly assessed as such by the Income -tax Officer. The Tribunal accordingly set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored that of the Income -tax Officer. Since the Tribunal did not deal with the contention of the assessees that the offerings constituted the income of a public religious trust and not the income of the assessees, the assessees made a miscellaneous application to the Tribunal requesting the Tribunal to deal with this contention and to dispose of the same on merits. The Tribunal rejected this application, broadly, on two grounds. The first ground was that the application was undated and was not signed by all the assessees, and the second ground was that, even though it was true that the assessees had raised the contention at the hearing of the appeals before the Tribunal, the assessees were not entitled to agitate the contention since the assessees had not come in appeal to the Tribunal against the refusal of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to entertain this ground.