1. The instant reference pertains to two idols, Sri Radha and Sri Krishna at Cachar. The two idols were installed by Baikuntha Gupta, a tea estate holder called Star Tea Estate in Sylhet town in Sylhet district of undivided Bengal in pre-partition days.
2. Baikuntha Gupta, by a gift deed executed on July 2, 1915, endowed Rs. 2,90,000 and appointed Messrs. B. C. Gupta and Sons, the manager of the Star Tea Estate as trustee of the two idols. After the partition of India, Sylhet became part of East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. The two idols are in India in the Cachar District of Assam in the Republic of India.
3. In iacome-tax assessment proceedings for 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1969-70, a question arose whether the idols are one unit of assessment. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, on February 15, 1974, held that the two idols are to be assessed separately for Sri Krishna was born at Mathura on 8th Bhadra of the dark half of the lunar month of Thretha Yuga, year not known. His father was Basudeva and mother, Devaki. Sri Radha was born at Nanda-Gokul on the 8th Bhadra of the bright half of the lunar month of Thretha Yuga, year not known. Her father was Vrishabhanu and mother, Kalavati. Sri Krishna, a Purusha (cosmos) and Sri Radha, the Prakriti (nature), therefore, are two entities. The cosmos and nature are philosophical viewpoints propounded by Kapila Mahamuni in the Samkhya School of thought.
4. The instant reference is under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Wealth-tax Officer, for the assessment year 1964-65, assessed the two idols as one unit. Thereupon, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, on February 7, 1975, set aside the orders and directed the idols to be assessed as two units of assessment. In the subsequent proceedings relevant to 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1969-70 assessment orders, the Appellate Tribunal held that the idols are not individuals and, therefore, are not covered by the Wealth-tax Act of 1957. Later, at the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions are referred to this court : (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the wealth-tax assessment made on the trustees in respect of the properties settled for the benefit of the two deities was not sustainable in law in view of the provisions contained in Section 21 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 This question is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in CWT v. Trustees of H. E. H. Nizam's Family (Remainder Wealth) Trust : [1977]108ITR555(SC) and is to be answered in the affirmative.
5. The second question is whether the decision of the Tribunal that deities are not individuals and Section 3 does not apply in the case of a deity and, therefore, the Wealth-tax Act does not apply to a deity, is not untenable in law ?
6. There was an overdrawn controversy under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, whether an idol is a person and also an individual. The controversy is now set at rest by Parliament in the definition Clause (31) of Section 2 of the 1961 Act to state that 'person' includes individual. The Supreme Court held that idols are persons and individuals and relevant cases are collate in Official Trustee of West Bengal v. CIT : [1974]93ITR348(SC) . The two questions thus are no more open.
7. The first and the second questions, therefore, are answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.