Dedicated deity property is distinct from a private religious trust, limiting exemption to the narrower statutory category.

Income from ancient debutter properties dedicated to deities was treated as income from dedicated property, not as property held in trust in the strict legal sense. The court held that a dedication to a deity is distinct from a private religious trust, so the exemption restricted to property held under trust for religious or charitable purposes did not extend to these properties. It further held that the last paragraph of Section 4(3)(xii) applied only to "trust" and not to the broader phrase "other legal obligation." On both questions, the reference was answered in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the income derived from the properties was income from property held in trust for deities or from property dedicated to the deities, and whether it fell within the exemption for property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for religious or charitable purposes. (ii) Whether the last paragraph of Section 4(3)(xii) governed both "trust" and "other legal obligation" in Section 4(3)(i), or only "trust".

Issue (i): Whether the income derived from the properties was income from property held in trust for deities or from property dedicated to the deities, and whether it fell within the exemption for property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for religious or charitable purposes.

Analysis: The properties were shown to be ancient debutter properties. The deed and surrounding recitals indicated that the properties had long been devoted to the deities and were treated as dedicated properties rather than as property held in trust in the strict English sense. A dedication to a deity is legally distinct from a private religious trust, and the statutory expression "trust" could not be extended to dedicated property merely because the property was used for religious purposes.

Conclusion: The properties were dedicated properties and not property held in trust for the deities; the exemption applicable to a private religious trust therefore did not apply. The answer was in favour of the Assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the last paragraph of Section 4(3)(xii) governed both "trust" and "other legal obligation" in Section 4(3)(i), or only "trust".

Analysis: Reading the exemption clause with its Explanation, the restrictive proviso concerning a private religious trust was directed to income from a private religious trust and did not extend to the broader phrase "other legal obligation". The statutory language and structure supported a narrower operation of the last paragraph.

Conclusion: The last paragraph of Section 4(3)(xii) governed only "trust" and did not govern "other legal obligation". The answer was in favour of the Assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the assessee on both questions, and the income from the dedicated debutter properties was held to be outside the restrictive operation of the proviso governing private religious trusts.

Ratio Decidendi: Dedicated property for a deity is not the same as property held in trust for a deity, and a proviso directed to a private religious trust cannot be extended beyond its text to cover a different category of religious legal obligation.

---