1967 (7) TMI 29 - HC - Income Tax

Property dedicated to deity by will and not let out - temple which is wholly and exclusively occupied by a deity or for use of the deity comes within the mischief of section 9(2) - computation of income artificially - valid

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of a will establishing a debutter estate for two deities, determination of annual value for dedicated properties, applicability of Income-tax Act on properties not generating income, consideration of notional income for unlet properties, relevance of restrictive clauses in determining letting value.

Analysis:
The case involved the interpretation of a will by Banku Behari Saha establishing a debutter estate for two deities and the determination of the annual value for two dedicated properties in Calcutta. The will dedicated properties to the deities for devotional purposes and contained clauses restricting usage and occupation of the properties. The dispute arose when the Income-tax Officer computed the annual value of the properties based on potential rental income, despite them being dedicated for religious purposes and not generating any income.

The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal both ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the properties had no letting value due to the restrictions in the will against any occupation apart from the priest and servants. The Tribunal's decision was challenged by the revenue, leading to a reference to the High Court on the question of whether the properties had a bona fide annual value under the Income-tax Act.

The High Court analyzed the provisions of section 9(2) of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that even unlet properties are deemed to have a notional annual income based on potential rental value. The court cited precedents from the Bombay High Court to support the notion that restrictive clauses may reduce letting value but do not negate the existence of notional income. The court held that the properties in question should be assessed for annual value despite the restrictions in the will.

The court answered the question in the affirmative, in favor of the revenue, stating that the properties should be subject to taxation based on notional income. However, the court clarified that it did not express an opinion on whether a temple exclusively occupied by a deity falls under the Income-tax Act provisions. The judgment was delivered jointly by Banerjee J. and K. L. Roy J., with the latter concurring with the decision.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the taxation of the dedicated properties based on notional income, emphasizing the applicability of the Income-tax Act even to properties used for religious purposes. The judgment provided clarity on the treatment of unlet properties with restrictive clauses in determining their annual value for taxation purposes.