9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (10) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Shri K.A. Easwaran of Komarapalayam. The first prize was of Rs. 1,25,000 and the ticket which was purchased jointly by these two persons was ticket No. HE-235797 of Himachal Pradesh. The prize was won in the draw held on 19-1-1982 and a copy of the certificate of the Canara Bank had been produced before the ITO to show that the two persons had deposited the ticket for recovery of the prize amount. The assessee had relied on an order of the Tribunal in the case of A.U. Chandrasekharan [IT Appeal No. 1008 (Mad.) of 1978-79, dated 21-6-1979] to claim that they could not be assessed as an AOP and each of the individuals should be separately assessed. The ITO did not agree, holding that there was a joint venture to earn money and, therefore, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adras High Court, cannot be equated to that of an AOP. The Court held that the concept of 'BOI' excludes the crucial characteristics of an AOP, such as for instance, a common intention and a common activity to produce taxable income. There is also the observation that persons who do nothing but stand and wait may not be an AOP ; but, they may yet be a BOI, if they stand together, and wait for something to be shared between them. The case before the Madras High Court was one where a family group carried on business consequent to certain testamentary devolutions. The Court observed, while upholding the status of BOI in that case, as under : "... What is more, the object which united them economically was not just an investment in property b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any action on the part of a BOI. All that has happened is that, two persons jointly purchased a lottery ticket. Each was co-owner of the lottery ticket. If a lottery ticket won no prize, each lost his share of investment, though it may be nominal, and once the draw was over and no prize was fetched, they became divested of the property of which they were the co-owners, namely, the lottery ticket. If the particular ticket drew a prize, it was only as a result of fortuitous circumstance and each of them had a right to share the prize money equally. Thus, they become the co-owners in the prize money. We, therefore, hold that the two persons by purchasing a lottery ticket jointly did not constitute a BOI. We have already held that they did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
