TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1967 (4) TMI 9
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... whereby he bequeathed his entire estate to two deities, Sree Sree Iswar Balaram Jew and Radhakatna Jew subject to the payment of certain legacies, annuities and expenses. There was a provision in the will that, in the event of the bequest or any part thereof in favour of the deities being held by a competent court to be void, the estate will be inherited by his heirs, his son, Sarbaranjan Bysack, and his nephew, Dakbinaranjan Bysack. Probate of the will was duly granted on August 18, 1887. The nephew, Dakhinaranjan Bysack, died in 1895, after having married Purnashashi Dassi in the year 1893. In 1896, Purnashashi Dassi filed a suit, O. S. 363 of 1896, on the original side of the Calcutta High Court against the widow of the testator and her....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that purpose the following properties in Calcutta should be set apart, namely, No. 1, Chytan Sett Street ; No. 60, Banstollah Street ; No. 85, Upper Chitpore Road ; and No. 16, Brindaban Bysack Street. " The report was accepted by the High Court and a final decree was passed on September 22, 1903. Excepting these four properties, the other properties of the testator were divided between Purnashashi Dassi and Sarbaranjan Bysack. For the assessment years 1952-53 to 1955-56, Sarbaranjan claimed that the four properties should be regarded as " debutter properties ", that is to say, that ownership had passed from the assessee to the two family deities, and on that basis he did not file returns in respect of those properties. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rejected the contention of the assessee and upheld the order passed by the Income-tax Officer. As desired by the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal referred the following question of law to the High Court under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act : " Whether upon a construction of the will of Kedarnath Bysack dated May 30, 1887, and the pleadings and proceedings of Suit No. 363 of 1896, in the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal (Sm. Poornasasi Dassi v. Sm. Koylashmoney Dassi & Anr.) including the decree therein dated July 1, 1897, the report dated July 4, 1900, the return dated September 15, 1903, and the order dated September 22, 1903, the four properties in question vested absolutely and belonged to the Thakoors Sri Sri ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he result was that Sarbaranjan and the heir of Dakhinaranjan became entitled to the residuary estate. The preliminary decree directed " an enquriy as to what provision should be made for carrying on the worship of the two deities, Sri Sri Bolloramjee and Radha Kant Jew, ......... in the way the same was carried on by the said testator and his mother ". The preliminary decree proceeded to state : " And it is further declared that the said defendant, Sreemutty Koylashmoney Dassee, is entitled to act as Sebayet of the said Thakoor during the minority of the infant defendant, Surborunjan Bysack, and that thereafter the said defendants, Sreemutty Koylashmoney Dassee and Surborunjun Bysack, will be entitled to act as Sebayots jointly. And it i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ur properties to the deities. The words " set apart " used in the commissioner's report only indicated that the expenses of worship and puja of the deities should be met from the income of the four properties but not that the title and ownership of the properties should pass to the deities. In any case, even if there is an ambiguity in the commissioner's report, it should be read in the context and background of the preliminary decree of the High Court in suit No. 363 of 1896. Having regard to the clear terms of the preliminary decree, we are of the opinion that there is no scope for the argument that there was any dedication of the four properties in favour of the two deities because of the commissioner's report. It is manifest that the fo....