Court caseAIR 1969 SC 1089

Property had been dedicated by a will to the family deities (Sri Sri Iswar Durga Thakurani and others) and the shebaits received the income. The income-tax authorities assessed the deities as an 'individual' through the shebaits. The shebaits objected that a deity, being an artificial person, could not be an 'individual' and could not be taxed. The Calcutta High Court answered the question against them and the matter came to the Supreme Court.

Ramaswami J, tracing the Hindu law from the Smritis and the Privy Council decisions, held that a 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 the property. The idol is a 'unit of assessment'; the word 'individual' in the charging section is wide enough to include a juristic person such as a deity. The court explained that the ownership attributed to the idol is an ideal or juristic ownership: the deity has no desires or needs, so the property is in substance held for the purposes of worship, and the law gives it a legal personality so that the dedicated property can be protected and its income dealt with.