9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (9) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certificate of the Bank of Madurai was filed before the ITO. There was no dispute regarding the receipt of prize money from the Bank of Madurai. But the only dispute in this case is regarding the status in which the prize money was received. The claim of the assessee is that as a matter of chance, he got commission of Rs. 540 from Usman Brothers on 29-12-1975 and about Rs. 500 commission was received from M.T. Sons. Also in the status of HUF, the assessee was being assessed for the last decade and so but the commission income was utilised by the assessee for the purchase of small savings prize bonds of Bank of Madurai of Rs. 500 each on 9-1-1976. The assessee filed affidavit on 15-9-1980 that this money belonged to him in his individual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the learned counsel, in the present case, no gambling was involved and as such the present case is not hit by the provisions of section 2(24)(ix). The learned counsel mainly relied on the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala [1957] 2 MLJ 87. Reference was also made to the ratio of decisions in the cases of CIT v. Sanjiv Kumar [1980] 123 ITR 187 (Punj. Har.), Amara Kondaiah v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 73 (AP) and Bhola Nath Kesari v. Director of State Lotteries, [1974] 95 ITR 171 (All.). 6. The learned departmental representative supported the order of the AAC. It was submitted by him that sub-clause (ix) which was inserted in section 2(24), with effect from the assessment year 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... minor issue.] 9. The other point for consideration is whether the said winning is taxable under section 2(24)(ix). Prior to 1972, winning from lotteries used to be exempt from income-tax as being receipt of casual and non-recurring nature. By the Finance Act, 1972, certain amendments were made to the Income-tax Act, 1961, as a result of which the winnings from lotteries, and certain other games, gambling or betting also became taxable. The following amendment was made in the Income-tax Act, In section 2(24), which defines income, a new sub-clause (ix) was added which reads as under : " (ix) any winnings from lotteries, crossword puzzles, races including horse races, card games and other games of any sort or from gambling or betting of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e participants in the lottery, who buy tickets or pay subscription in consideration of an offer by the promoters to award them a prize on some contingency the happening whereof depends on chance. " 11. A lottery is a scheme for the distribution of prizes by lot or chance. In Corpus Juris Secundum, the word 'lottery' has been defined as follows : " Pooling the proceeds derived from chances or tickets taken or purchased and then allotting such proceeds or a part of them or their equivalent by chance to one or more such takers or purchasers are indicia of a lottery. " 12. From the definitions of the word 'lottery', as given by various authors, reference to which has already been made, it is clear that the element of chance is one of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly exempt from taxation in certain circumstances under section 10(3). Anything which can properly be described as income is taxable under the Act unless it is expressly exempted. Reference may be made to the ratio of decision in the case of Rani Amrit Kunwar v. CIT [1946] 14 ITR 561 (All.). 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the winning of Rs. 50,000 from lottery, crossword puzzles is definitely income and is taxable under section 2(24)(ix). 16. The decision in CIT v. G.R. Karthikeyan [1980] 124 ITR 85 (Mad,) is not applicable on the facts of the present case. In that case, the assessee participated in a race which involved a skill in the performance of driving of the vehicle. He had to cover a very long distance and had to quali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd suppress the mischief. Reference may be made to the ratio of the decision in the case of Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration AIR 1965 SC 871. 19. In the decision in Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa AIR 1975 SC 17, the Supreme Court ruled as under : " As usual references have been made to the dictionaries but quite often it is not possible to hold a dictionary in one hand and the statute to be interpreted in the other for ascertaining the import and intent of the word or expression used by the Legislature. The shade of meaning of a word, its different connotations and collocations which one finds in a dictionary does not relieve us of the responsibility of having to make the ultimate choice of selecting the right meaning. We choos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
