1981 (11) TMI 69 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 1,10,000 to the assessee's income on account of income estimated from undisclosed sources.
2. Assessment based on conjectures and surmises by the Income Tax Officer (ITO).
3. Validity of the assessee's claim of purchasing the winning lottery ticket before the draw.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 1,10,000 to the assessee's income on account of income estimated from undisclosed sources:
The Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Jullundur, for the assessment year 1976-77, which involved the addition of Rs. 1,10,000 to the assessee's income. The ITO concluded that the assessee purchased the winning lottery ticket after the draw at a premium of Rs. 10,000, treating the total amount of Rs. 1,10,000 (Rs. 1,00,000 prize money + Rs. 10,000 premium) as investment from undisclosed sources. The ITO's finding was based on his belief that the assessee had not purchased the ticket before the draw held on 15th Dec., 1975.

2. Assessment based on conjectures and surmises by the Income Tax Officer (ITO):
The assessee contended that the ITO's assessment was based on conjectures and surmises. The ITO's enquiry included contacting the Director of Karnataka State Lotteries, M/s. Meeta Traders, and various local lottery agents, but he did not find conclusive evidence to support the claim that the ticket was purchased before the draw. The CIT found that the ITO's reliance on conjectures and surmises was unjustified, as there was no material evidence to support the claim that the ticket was purchased after the draw. The CIT emphasized that the assessee had received the prize from the Director of State Lotteries of Karnataka, and the circumstances did not support the ITO's theory.

3. Validity of the assessee's claim of purchasing the winning lottery ticket before the draw:
The CIT, after considering the assessee's explanation and the corroboration by V.K. Sareen of Sareen Lottery Emporium, found that the assessee had reasonably explained the purchase of the ticket. The CIT noted that the ITO failed to establish who the original purchaser was and did not provide evidence that the ticket was purchased after the draw. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's finding, noting that the ITO relied on surmises and conjectures without material evidence. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the four consecutive tickets purchased by the assessee and her husband, indicating that the tickets were likely purchased before the draw. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the ITO was not justified in treating the amount as income from undisclosed sources.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the ITO's assessment was based on conjectures and surmises without substantial evidence. The CIT's finding that the assessee had purchased the winning ticket before the draw was upheld. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.