Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 1982 (7) TMI HC This
Issues:
1. Whether a donation made for public charitable purposes is dutiable under section 9 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953? Analysis: The judgment pertains to a reference on a case stated under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, regarding the dutiability of a donation made for public charitable purposes. The deceased had made a cash donation of Rs. 1,00,000 less than one month before her death to an institution called Seva Sadan. The Assistant Controller included this sum in the dutiable estate of the deceased under section 9 of the Act, considering it a gift made within six months prior to her death. The accountable person's appeals to the Appellate Controller and the Tribunal were dismissed, leading to the reference to the High Court. The High Court examined the provisions of section 9(1) of the Estate Duty Act, which deems property taken under a disposition made by the deceased within a specified period before death as passing on death. The section provides a shorter period of six months for gifts made for public charitable purposes. The accountable person contended that a donation to a charitable institution should not be considered a gift under the Act. However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that a donation is a type of gift, as per common parlance and legal interpretation. The Court referred to dictionary definitions of "donation" as a category of gift, supporting its conclusion. Furthermore, the accountable person argued that the gift or donation, being bona fide, should not fall under the provisions of section 9(1). The Court clarified that for a gift not to be included in the property passing on death, it must have been made bona fide and at least one year before the deceased's death. In the case of gifts to charity, the prescribed period was six months. Therefore, the Court rejected this submission as well, affirming that the donation in question was dutiable under section 9 of the Act. Consequently, the question referred to the Court was answered in the affirmative and against the assessee.
|