sarbaranjan replied as follows as the properties mentioned in the companyy of the final decree passed in suit number 363 of 1896 of the honble high companyrt calcutta and filed on 31st july 1953 are neither secular properties number even the assessee has any personal interest therein but the said properties are exclusively debutter set apart by the order of the above final decree the production of evidence of income of the said properties to assess the assessee with respect to his secular properties need number be asked for.
13114 for the third year and rs.
one kedarnath bysack a hindu governed by the bengal school of hindu law died on july 10 1887 leaving behind his widow kailashmoney dasi a son sarbaranjan bysack and his nephew dakhinaranjan bysack.
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 companypetent companyrt to be void the estate will be inherited by his heirs his son sarbaranjan bysack and his nephew dakhinaranjan bysack.
it was declared that the gift of the estate by the testator in favour of the deities was invalid and it was ordered that an enquiry should be made as to what provision was necessary for the sheba and worship of the deities in the same way as it was carried on by the testator.
12429 after making the necessary allowance for the first year rs.
14000 for the last year of assessment.
in 1896 purnashashi dassi filed a suit o. s. 363 of 1896 on the original side of the calcutta high companyrt against the widow of the testator and her son sarbaranjan bysack asking for a proper companystructions of the will and declaration of her rights and of the other parties to the suit.
the high companyrt answered the question against the assessee and in favour of the companymissioner of income tax.
the income tax officer refused to exempt the income from assessment.
the high companyrt granted a preliminary decree in o. s. 363 of 1896 on july 1 1897.
probate of the will was duly granted on august 18 1887.
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 bolloramjee and sri sri issur radhakantjee or whether in the fact and circumstances the said four properties vested in and belonged to sarbaranjan bysack subject to a charge for meeting the expenses of sheba and worship of the said thakoors in the way the same was carried on by the said kedarnath bysack and his mother.
the income tax officer requested sarbaranjan to furnish particulars of income of these properties.
for the assessment year 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 number file returns in respect of those properties.
koylashmoney dassi anr.
13114 for the second year rs.
the assessee appealed to the appellate tribunal and companytended that the disputed properties had been exclusively set apart and dedicated for the performance of sheba and puja of the two deities and the title to the properties had vested in the said two deities.
poornasasi dassi v. smt.
500 annually for gifts and donations on poojhas and for festival occasions and for that purpose the following properties in calcutta should be set apart namely number 1 chytan sett street number 60 banstollah street number 85 upper chitpore road and number 16 brindaban bysack street.
it was alleged that the income the disputed properties had been diverted at source as a result of the decree of the high companyrt and therefore the income was number taxable in the hands of the assessee.
the nephew dakhinaranjan bysack died in 1895 after having married purnashashi dassi in the year 1893.
he estimated the income to be rs.
the appellate tribunal rejected the companytention of the assessee and upheld the order passed by the income tax officer.
the companymissioner who was appointed to make the enquiry under the preliminary decree made his report on july 4 1900 stating it is necessary to provide rs.
the assessee took the matter in appeal to the appellate assistant companymissioner who took the matter in appeal to the appellate assistant companymissioner who dismissed the appeal.
excepting these four properties the other properties of the testator were divided between purnashashi dassi and sarbaranjan bysack.
she also asked for an enquiry to be made as to what was the proper provision to be made out of the said estate for the due performance of sheba and worship of the deities sree sree iswar balaram jew and radhakatna jew on the footing that the gift made to them by the testator in his will was number intended to operate and did number operate as an absolute gift but only as a provision for the due and proper performance of sheba and worship of the said deities.
as desired by the assessee the appellate tribunal referred the following question of law to the high companyrt under section 66 1 of the income tax act whether upon a companystruction of the will of kedarnath bysack dated may 30 1887 and the pleadings and proceedings of suit number 363 of 1896 in the high companyrt of judicature at fort william in bengal sm.
ramaswami j. these appeals are brought by certificate from the judgment of the calcutta high companyrt dated march 13 1964 in income tax reference number 39 of 1960.
the report was accepted by the high companyrt and a final decree was passed on september 22 1903.
purnashashi dassi prayed that after such provision was made the rest of the property of the testator might be directed to be divided in equal proportions between herself and the other heirs of the testator.
