TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an. He was a very pious person. The events during his life considerably influenced him. Having led a very eventful life, he (Shri Ramdeoji) announced that he would go into meditation and never come back out of it. It is said that on the 11th day of Preduman of Bhadrapad, 1515, he went into meditation and never came back out of it. Before going into meditation, Shri Ramdeoji gave the following directions to his sons and descendants: " (i) the place of meditation should be maintained; (ii) at the place of meditation a white flag should be hoisted and flame should be lit continuously ; (iii) that the clan of Tanwar Rajputs to share the presents of food offered at the Samadhi or the place of burial and share the offerings equally amongst themselves; and (iv) on the day of meditation and one day earlier, mela or a congregation of the devotees should be held." Since then, that place where Shri Ramdeoji went into meditation and never came back is maintained by the clan of Tanwar Rajputs. He was considered by the local people as an incarnation of God. Large quantities of articles of food were also received which were distributed amongst the descendants according to the formula de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been referred to us for our opinion. We have heard Mr. B. R. Arora, learned counsel for the Revenue, and Mr. Rajesh Balia assisted N. L. Bissa and carefully considered the order dated September 13, 1976, of the Income-tax Officer, order dated March 31, 1977, of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the order dated June 28, 1979, of the Tribunal. Question No. 1 : Under this question, we are called upon to determine whether during the relevant previous year, Shri Ramdeo Samadhi, Ramdeora, had any income from any source which can be taxed in the hands of the assessee (Shri Ramdeo Samadhi, Ramdeora). We have already mentioned that we are concerned with the assessment year 1973-74. Income has been defined in section 2(24) of the Act. It is merely an inclusive definition and various types have been enumerated. It may be stated that subclause (ii)(a) in section 2(24) was inserted by the Finance Act, 1972, with effect from April 1, 1973, and sub-clauses (iva) and (ix) were inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, with effect from April 1, 1980, and by the Finance Act, 1972, with effect from April 1, 1972, respectively. We are concerned with the definition of income as contained in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been defined as a gain or recurrent benefit that is usually measured in money and for a given period of time derived from capital, labour, or combination of both, includes gains from transaction in capital assets but excludes unrealised advances in value ; commercial revenue or receipts of any kind except receipts or returns of capital. In Rani Amrit Kanwar v. CIT [1946] 14 ITR 561 (All), the Allahabad High Court indicated a broad and rough test to decide when a question arises whether a particular receipt is income or not and the test is to ask oneself whether having regard to all the circumstances surrounding payment and receipt of income, what is received is of the character of income according to the ordinary meaning of that word in the English language or whether it is merely a casual receipt or a mere windfall. It was further laid down therein that the necessity of the obligation on the part of the payer is not sine qua non of a receipt to become an income. In H.H. Maharaj Rana Hemant Singhji v. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 83 (Raj), a contention was raised that the concept of income is that it must be referable to a source capable of yielding some periodical return. It was observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ji come of their own accord and offer amounts there cannot be said to be periodical payments and there is no regularity of payments. The Income-tax Officer seems to have taken Shri Ramdeoji's Samadhi, Ramdeora, as a source of income. There is no basis for that as, in our opinion, it cannot be characterised as a capital asset. Before a particular amount can be characterised as an income, there should be its definite source which should be an identifiable one, may be an individual or an institution, or a body of people or any other source. This has been the consistent view taken in H. H. Maharani Shri Vijaykuverba Saheb of Morvi v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 594 (Bom), Princess Ruby Rajiber Kaur v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 624 (Punj) and CWT v. Mrs. Arundhati Balkrishna [1968] 70 ITR 203 (Guj). The last ingredient of income which we have mentioned above is, namely, " it should not be in the nature of mere windfall ". The offerings that were made at the Samadhi by the devotees or pilgrims were made by them on the spur of the moment when they go there. There is no prior determination. The offerings are voluntary in the shape of gifts and cannot be attributed to any activity on the part of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee was not carrying on any activity in the nature of profession. The conclusion to which the Gujarat High Court arrived was that the offerings were not made in return for any services rendered by the assessee and thus the amount received at the feet of Jalarambapa was not assessable. In that case Vahiwatdars of Ambaji Temple v. CIT [1965] 58 ITR 675 (Guj), Acharya D. V. Pande v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 152 (SC), H. H. Maharani Shri Vijaykuverba Saheb of Morvi's case [1963] 49 ITR 594 (Bom), P. Krishna Menon's case [1959] 35 ITR 48 (SC), Mahesh Anantrai Pattani v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 481 (SC) and Mehboob Productions P. Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 758 (Bom) were, besides others, referred. We are respectfully in agreement with the view taken in Girdharram's case [1985] 154 ITR 10 (Guj) and follow it. Mr. B. R. Arora, learned counsel for the Revenue, invited our attention to Govindlalji Ranchhodlalji v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 92 (Bom) which, according to him, has a bearing on the case in hand. We have carefully considered it and, in our opinion, it cannot be of any avail. In that case too, the two amounts were offerings made to the assessee who claimed himself to be the direct descendant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
