Case: Jogendra Nath Naskar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta

the idol may be to the worshipper a symbol (pratika) of the Supreme God-head intended to invoke a sense of the vast and intimate reality, and suggesting the essential truth of the Real that is beyond all name or form. It is a basic postulate of Hindu religion that different images do not represent different divinties, they are really symbols of One Supreme Spirit and in whichever name or form the deity is invoked, the Hindu worshipperr purports to worship the Supreme Spirit and nothing else.(Rig Veda I. 164)They have spoken of Him as Agni, Mitra, Varuna, Indra; the one Existence the sages speak of in many ways). The Bhagavad Gita echoes this verse when it says:(Thou art Vayu and Yama, Agni, Varuna and Moon; Lord of Creation art Thou, and Grandsire). Sankara, the great philosopher, refers to the one Reality, who, owing to the diversity of intellects (matibheda) is conventionally spoken of (parikalpya) in various ways as Brahma, Visnu and Mahesvara. It is however possible that the founder of the endowment or the worshipper may not conceive on this highest spiritual plane but hold that the idol is the very embodiment of a personal God, but that is not a matter with which the law is concerned.Neither God nor any supematural being could be a person in law. But so far as the deity stands as the representative and symbol of the particular purpose which is indicated by the donor, it can figure as a legal person. The true legal view is that in that capacity alone the dedicated property vests in it. There is no principle why a deity as such a legal person should not be taxed if such a legal person is allowed in law to own property even though in the ideal sense and to sue for the property, to realise rent and to defend such property in a Court of law again in the ideal sense. Our conclusion is that the Hindu idol is a juristic entity capable of holding property and of being taxed through its shebaits who are entrusted with the possession and management of its property, It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the word "individual" in Section 3 of the Act should not be construed as including a Hindu deity because it was not a real but a juristic person. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. We see no reason why the meaning of the word individual in Section 3 of the Act should be restricted to human beings and not to juristic entities.In Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh and Bhopal v. Sodra Devi, 1958 SCR 1 at p. 6=(AIR 1957 SC 832 at pp. 834-835), Mr. Justice Bhagwati pointed out as follows:-"the word individual has not been defined in the Act and there is authority, for the proposition that the word individual does not mean only a human being but is wide enough to include a group of persons forming a unit. It has been held that the word individual includes a Corporation created by a statute, e.g., a University or a Bar Council, or the trustees of a baronetcy trust incorporated by a Baronetcy Act".We are accordingly of opinion that a Hindu deity falls within the meaning of the word individual under Section 3 of the Act and can be treated as a unit of assessment under that Section.8. On behalf of the appellant Mr. Chagla referred to Section 2 sub-section (31) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act No. 49 of 1961) which states:"2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-* * * * *(31) person includes-(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".Counsel also referred to Section 2 (9) and Section 3 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 which state:"2. In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context-* * * * *(9) person includes Hindu undivided family and local authority.""3. Where any Central Act enacts that income-tax shall be charged for any year at any rate or rates, tax at that rate or those rates shall be charged for that year in accordance with, and subject to the provisions of, this Act in respect of the total income of the previous year of every individual, Hindu undivided family, company and local authority, and of every firm and other association of persons or the partners of the firm or the members of the association individually".9. On a comparison of the provisions of the two Acts counsel on behalf of the appellant contended that a restricted meaning should be given to the word individual" in Section 3 of the earlier Act. We see no justification for this argument.On the other hand, we are of the opinion that the language employed in 1961 Act may be relied upon as a Parliamentary exposition of the earlier Act even on the assumption that the language employed in Section 3 of the earlier Act is ambiguous. It is clear that the word "individual in Section 3 of the 1922 Act includes within its connotation all artificial juridical persons and this legal position is made explicit and beyond challenge in the 1961 Act. In Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commr., 1921-2 KB 403, Lord Sterndale M. R. said:I think it is clearly established in Attorney General v. Clarkson, 1900-1 QB 156 at pp. 168, 164, that subsequent legislation may be looked at in order to see the proper construction to be put upon an earlier Act where that earlier Act is ambiguous. I quite agree that subsequent legislation if it proceeded on an erroneous construction of previous legislation cannot alter that previous legislation; but if there be any ambiguity in the earlier legislation, then the subsequent legislation may fix the proper interpretation which is to be put upon the earlier Act.10.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Thus, according to the texts, the Gods have no beneficial enjoyment of the properties, and they can be described as their owners only in a figurative sense (Gaunartha). The correct legal position is that the idol as representing and embodying the spiritual purpose of the donor is the juristic person recognised by law and in this juristic person the dedicated propertyare accordingly of opinion that a Hindu deity falls within the meaning of the word individual under Section 3 of the Act and can be treated as a unit of assessment under thatsee no justification for this argument.On the other hand, we are of the opinion that the language employed in 1961 Act may be relied upon as a Parliamentary exposition of the earlier Act even on the assumption that the language employed in Section 3 of the earlier Act is ambiguous. It is clear that the word "individual in Section 3 of the 1922 Act includes within its connotation all artificial juridical persons and this legal position is made explicit and beyond challenge in the 1961. It is well established by high authorities that a Hindu idol is a juristic person in whom the dedicated propertyShould however be remembered that, the juristic person in the idol is not the material image, and it is an exploded theory that the image itself develops into a legal person as soon as it is consecrated and vivified by the Pran Pratishta ceremony. It is not also correct that the supreme being of which the idol is a symbol or image is the recipient and owner of the dedicated property.This is clearly laid down in authoritative Sanskritaccording to the texts, the Gods have no beneficial enjoyment of the properties, and they can be described as their owners only in a figurative sense (Gaunartha). The correct legal position is that the idol as representing and embodying the spiritual purpose of the donor is the juristic person recognised by law and in this juristic person the dedicated propertyaccording to the texts, the Gods have no beneficial enjoyment of the properties, and they can be described as their owners only in a figurative sense (Gaunartha). The correct legal position is that the idol as representing and embodying the spiritual purpose of the donor is the juristic person recognised by law and in this juristic person the dedicated propertye accordingly of opinion that a Hindu deity falls within the meaning of the word individual under Section 3 of the Act and can be treated as a unit of assessment under thatsee no justification for this argument.On the other hand, we are of the opinion that the language employed in 1961 Act may be relied upon as a Parliamentary exposition of the earlier Act even on the assumption that the language employed in Section 3 of the earlier Act is ambiguous. It is clear that the word "individual in Section 3 of the 1922 Act includes within its connotation all artificial juridical persons and this legal position is made explicit and beyond challenge in the 1961