Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1979 (6) TMI 102

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fortunate enough to secure a prize of Rs. one lakh for one of tickets thus purchased, viz, ticket No. s. 647180. The above 10 persons had authorised Shri Chandrasekaran to collect the above prize amount through the Punjab National Bank. The said bank, after having realised the prize amount, credited the net amount thus drawn, i.e., Rs. 67,000 (Rs. 1,00,000 minus Rs. 33,000 deducted by the Director of Raffles) to the respective bank accounts of the 10 persons. Each one of the above 10 persons thus got a sum of Rs. 6,700. The ITO, however, was of the view that the 10 persons should be assessed in the status of an "AOP." Notice under s. 139(2) was, therefore, issued on 24th Oct., 1977. A nil return was filed. However, in Part-III of the return .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 61 w.e.f 1st April, 1972 and that therefore the assessment made by the ITO should be restored. 6. The learned representative for the assessee, on the other hand, relied upon the ruling of the Supreme Court in G. Murugesan Brothers vs. CIT Madras(1). 7. We have considered the rival submissions. It is common ground that the ten persons listed in the order of assessment entered into an agreement, dt. 17th Feb., 1977. This joint agreement is extracted in the order of assessment in paragraph 5. It is seen therefrom that the ten persons have jointly purchased 30 lottery tickets issued by the Tamil Nadu Govt. for which the prize was declared on 28th Feb., 1977. From the above agreement it is clear that all the ten persons who are parties to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... atus of an "AOP." The term "AOP" was considered by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Indira Balakrishana(2). The Court observed that an AOP must be one in which two or more persons joined in a common purpose or common action and that the association must be one the object of which is to produce income. The Court also cautioned that the question whether there is an "AOP" or not must depend on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. The point for consideration is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case ther is an "AOP". 8. The AP High Court in the case of Deccan Wine General Stores vs. CIT, referred the above ruling of the Supreme Court reported in 39 ITR 546 and his Lordships Mr. Justice Chinnappa Reddy, as he .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Devi Agarwalla and Others vs. CIT(4), also referred to the above two rulings of the Supreme Court reported in 39 ITR 546 and 88 ITR 432 and observed that for forming an "AOP", the members must joint together for the purpose of producing an income, that for receiving dividends from shares there was no question of any management, that an association could not be inferred from the mere fact that more than one person jointly owned shares and jointly received the dividends, that the ladies concerned in that case had drawn out their separate funds to purchase a property, that they had a distinct share in the ownership of the property, that there was no evidence of any common management and that except for the deed for purchase and the deed of sal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ize would not mean that the members associated together by carrying on a commercial activity to produce income. As observed earlier, the other ingredients necessary to constitute an "AOP" like common management, common activity to produce income etc., are utterly lacking in this case. As stated above, for the mere reason that one of the tickets which was jointly owned by all the ten persons secured the prize all the ten persons became the owners of the prize money in equal shares. The authorisation given to the bank to collect the prize money and to credit the same equally to the ten persons also confirm the position that there was only joint ownership of the winning ticket and there was no "AOP" carrying on any activity to produce income a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates