IN ITAT BOMBAY BENCH THIRD INCOME TAX MRS. SAVITRIDEVI v. OFFICER KULLAR March 30, 1984 JUDGMENT PerMeenakshisundaram - In these five appeals, therevenue objects to orders of AAC deleting following amounts, whichwere added as income in hands of assessee by ITO: AssessmentyearAmount Rs. 1975-7613,758 1976-7713,758 1977-7812,036 1978-7922,837 1979-8017,910 2.These amounts were claimed by assessee to be voluntary gifts received byher from ten persons in first three years and more persons in remainingtwo years and that they did not represent any income taxable in her hands. Insupport of this, assessee had furnished full and complete particulars ofthe donors from whom she had received these amounts in each year. It wasexplained that assessee did not charge or receive anything from heradmirers for spiritual cures, they got from her. assessee also filedconfirmations from her donors in support of her claim. 3.The ITO, however, did not accept assessee's contentions, as he was of theview that these amounts were paid to assessee for spiritual cures orbenefits got by donors from assessee, even though payments might bevoluntary. He held that though payments were termed as 'gifts', theregularity of payments showed that they were received for some favours received by donors. He, therefore, held thatthese receipts were 'income', which was taxable in hands of assessee. 4.When assessee appealed to AAC against these additions, he accepted theassessee's contentions and deleted additions in following words inparagraph 5 of his common order: "5.I have carefully considered these submissions. Unlike decision of theSupreme Court in case of P. Krishna Menonv. CIT [1959] (SC), where money was received from disciples wholearnt Vedanta philosophy, appellant had been receiving funds from personswho had no direct connection with spiritual healing activities. Those whodonated funds did so without reference to benefit derived by them and thequantum of donation, even in cases where donors were recipient ofcertain benefits from appellant, had no connectionwith quantum of relief. On facts available on records and consideringthe decisions on point, I have no hesitation in holding that act of spiritualhealing undertaken by appellant on one hand and donations receivedby her on other hand were two separate and independent actions unconnectedwith one another. receipts were not income liable to income-tax. They werepurely casual, mainly intended for charitable activities carried on by theappellant. additions on this account were uncalled for and, accordingly,deleted." 5.The revenue feels aggrieved by this decision of AAC and, hence, thepresent appeals to Tribunal. 6.After having heard learned counsel on both sides and carefully consideringtheir submissions in light of materials placed before us, we do notfind any reason to interfere with decision of AAC. There is no disputethat assessee, who has some spiritual powers of healing, is rendering thisservice free of charge to those who seek her help. It was stated before thedepartment and even before us that assessee was strictly forbidden by herspiritual masters from demanding or charging for spiritual services andcures rendered by her to these persons. declarations or confirmationletters, which have been filed before department and copies of which havebeen filed before us, show that amounts gifted by these donors were neitherthe charges nor any compensation paid for spiritual services or curesrendered by lady to her patients, who came to her for her help. On thecontrary, they are gifts made voluntarily, out of personal esteem, love andrespect for assessee, who is found to be doing selfless work free of chargeto those persons who seek her help to cure their ailments. declarationsestablish great esteem and veneration donors have for assessee.They further indicate that assessee was rendering spiritual services freeof charge to poor and donors' desire and intention in making thesegifts to assessee was that such selfless and noble work of assesseeshould continue without any hindrance. They also show that donors had notreceived any spiritual cures or benefits from assessee for which they werepaying her as fees or compensation or remuneration. 7.The declaration of Jehangir HormusjiKatrak, who has gifted Rs. 5,000 by cheque dated 11-10-1977, states that it was made out ofgreat respect and natural regard for assessee for past several years.This gentleman is income-tax assessee, as declaration shows. 8.The letter of Soli Bacha, dated 26-7-1979, provesthat gifts made by him of Rs. 3,000 each in first three years and ofRs. 5,000 in last year, were made out of personal love and affection. Hestates that he had gifted these amounts to enable assessee to continue hernoble services to society without any interruption. 9.In his letter, dated 12-5-1975, Prem Inder Singhstates that he had gifted Rs. 600 as token of his appreciation of theselfless and noble services rendered by assessee to poor people and thesimple living of assessee. Four more letters have been placed before us,which also speak in similar terms. We have referred to three of letters,only by way of illustration, to show high regard and esteem, which thedonors have for assessee, who seems to be rendering selfless services topoor people free of charge by using her spiritual powers. 10.On above facts and materials, we are satisfied that receipts inquestion are not for any fees, charges or remuneration or compensation paid tothe assessee for services rendered by her to poor people. on contrary, they are in nature of personal giftsmade by donors for personal qualities and as token of their personalesteem and veneration for assessee. Hence, these receipts cannot besubjected to tax as income arising out of business, profession or vocationunder sections 28 of Income-tax Act, 1961. We are supported in ourconclusion by decision of Bombay High Court in DilipKumar Roy v. CIT [1974] . In fact thelearned counsel for assessee cited this decision in support of hissubmissions. We, therefore, respectfully follow decisions of SupremeCourt and Bombay High Court cited above and holdthat AAC was right in holding that receipts in question could not betaxable as income in hands of assessee. Accordingly,the appeals are dismissed. *** Third Income-tax Officer v. Mrs. Savitridevi Kullar