HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Yogendra Nath Naskar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta
Civil Appeals Nos. 690-694 of 1968
[1969] 3 SCR 742 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 2(9), 3, 4, 4(3)(i), 41, 66(1) and 66A · Income-tax Act, 1961: section 2(31) (used only as subsequent legislative exposition in the Court's interpretation)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by V. Ramaswami, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · V. Ramaswami, J. · A. N. Grover, J.
Assessment years: 1952-53, 1953-54
01 · Facts of the case
Ram Kristo Naskar's will of 17 May 1899 dedicated properties to Sri Sri Iswar Kubereswar Mahadeb Thakur and Sri Sri Anandamoyee Kalimata and appointed Hem Chandra Naskar and Yogendra Nath Naskar as shebaits, with detailed directions for applying the income. Earlier AY 1950-51 and 1951-52 assessments on the shebaits as trustees were set aside because their status had been wrongly determined. For AYs 1952-53 and 1953-54 the officer instead assessed the deities as individuals through the shebaits and rejected exemption under the proviso to section 4(3)(i). The Tribunal set the assessments aside on a section 41 analysis. On reference, the Supreme Court removed the section 41 wording and framed the real issue as whether assessment of the deities through their shebaits was lawful (SCR pp.743-744; PDF pp.2-3).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court reviewed established Hindu-law authority treating an idol as a juridical person in whom dedicated property vests, with the shebait managing and protecting it. The legal person was not the material image or the supernatural being. It was the deity as representative and material embodiment of the founder's pious purpose. Because that entity could own property, sue, receive rent and defend its property through human management, there was no reason in principle why it could not be taxed through the shebaits (SCR pp.744-749; PDF pp.3-8). The word 'individual' in section 3 was not confined to a human being and could include a juristic entity. The Court relied on Sodra Devi's broader treatment of individual and considered the 1961 Act's express reference to artificial juridical persons as permissible exposition of an ambiguity in the earlier law, not as the governing charging provision for these years (SCR pp.749-751; PDF pp.8-10).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The Court held that a Hindu deity was a juristic entity capable of holding property and was an 'individual' under section 3 of the 1922 Act, assessable through the shebaits entrusted with its property. The modified question was answered in the affirmative for Revenue, and Civil Appeals Nos. 690-694 of 1968 were dismissed with costs and one hearing fee (SCR p.751; PDF p.10).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the Commissioner of Income-tax/respondent. The assessments on the deities through the shebaits were upheld, and all five appeals were dismissed with costs, with one hearing fee (SCR p.751; PDF p.10).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: keep status, charging unit and collection machinery distinct. Where endowed property is held for a deity, first identify the juridical person recognised by the governing personal law, then the statutory word that captures that person, and finally the human representative through whom assessment and recovery proceed. Do not turn the Court's purpose-based legal fiction into a theological proposition or read its use of later legislation as a present-law certification (based on SCR pp.744-751; PDF pp.3-10).
Source: Primary judgment: reviewPoint
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 10-page SCR report read and checked. The editorial headnote and adjacent-report boundary text were distinguished from the judicial opinion and operative order.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and 10-page count match catalogue asset 1969_3_742_751; every page was reviewed.
- The source verifies Civil Appeals Nos. 690-694 of 1968, the stated bench, issues, reasoning and operative result.
- No published or archived standalone AKHB note with this source hash, case identity and operative decision was found.
Statutory scope
The operative assessment holding construes the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Court referred to section 2(31) of the 1961 Act as legislative exposition of an asserted ambiguity; it did not adjudicate a present assessment or later statutory regime. No comprehensive later-treatment or current-law clearance was undertaken.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-11. Later judicial treatment and current statutory applicability have not been comprehensively checked; no current-law or citator clearance is represented.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.