1967 (4) TMI 9 - SC - Income Tax

Held that properties which had been set apart by the commissioner for the performance of sheba and worship of the deities formed part of the residuary estate of the testator and they were not dedicated for charitable purposes - question was rightly answered by the High Court against the assessee

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of a will and a codicil regarding the bequest to deities and subsequent inheritance by heirs, classification of properties as debutter properties, tax assessment on properties set apart for deity worship.

Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal regarding the interpretation of a will and a codicil made by a Hindu individual under the Bengal school of Hindu law. The testator bequeathed his estate to two deities subject to certain conditions, with a provision that in case the bequest to the deities was held void, the estate would pass to his heirs. The High Court declared the bequest to the deities invalid and ordered an enquiry to determine the provision required for deity worship. The court directed the division of the estate between the widow of the testator and his son, with specific properties set apart for deity worship.

The subsequent issue arose when the son claimed that the properties set apart for deity worship should be classified as debutter properties, exempt from tax assessment. The Income-tax Officer refused the exemption, estimating the income from these properties. The appellate authorities upheld the decision, leading to an appeal to the High Court. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the properties vested in the deities or the son, subject to the charge for deity worship expenses.

The High Court, after considering the will, codicil, court decrees, and reports, ruled against the assessee. It was argued that the properties were not partitioned between the parties and that the commissioner's report indicated the properties were set apart for deity worship. However, the court held that the properties were part of the residuary estate, not dedicated for charitable purposes. The court emphasized the clear terms of the preliminary decree and the lack of evidence for the properties being vested in the deities.

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the properties set apart for deity worship were not debutter properties and were part of the residuary estate. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal provisions, court decrees, and the intention behind the bequest, ensuring clarity on the ownership and tax assessment of the properties involved.