9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rein - assessee has invested in PPF and his contribution and return at the fixed rate remain the same and will be given to the person on maturity of the scheme irrespective of the fact whether the person has won the prize or not. Therefore, there is no element of risk involve - amount realised would not fall within the provisions of Section 2(24)(ix) and cannot be brought to tax - question raised by the revenue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. - ITA No. 147 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 25-2-2012 - M M Kumar and Alok Singh, JJ. For Appellant: Mr Rajesh Katoch, Adv For Respondent: Mr S K Mukhi, Adv JUDGEMENT Per: M M Kumar: 1. The revenue is in appeal against the order dated 16.12.2003, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench A (for brevity, the Tribunal ), holding that the assessee-respondent was not liable to pay tax on the prize of 1Kg. Gold won by him as it did not form part of his income within the meaning of clause (ix) of sub-section (24) of Section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, the Act ) in respect of Assessment Year 1996-97. 2. The facts of the case as revealed in the order of the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prize to the holders of numbers drawn at random. 2. an enterprise, process etc., whose success is governed by chance. In the present scheme of giving prizes, whereas there was an element of chance as there is in a lottery, but there was no purchasing of tickets or pooling of such proceeds as such. It was rather an investment. There was no element of risk involved in the sense that an investor could lose his money. It may be observed that all the categories which are brought to tax in s. 2(24)(ix) concerns those schemes where there was an element of risk meaning that a person could lose part of his money except in the case of cross-word puzzles which has been specifically mentioned therein. I agree with the view of the learned counsel of the appellant that in such matters where certain items are brought to tax only by virtue of a taxing provisions, then the said taxing provision had to be applied strictly and nothing more can be added therein. In these facts and circumstances the arguments advanced by the appellant would have to be upheld and the amount realised would not fall within the provisions of Section 2(24)(ix) and cannot be brought to tax. The appellant would be entit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent or decision in its favour. As regards, second proviso to Section 194B, which covered winnings in kind, the same has been inserted in the Act w.e.f. 01.06.1997 and is not applicable to the assessment year under reference. In any case, the decision of ITAT, Madras Bench fully applies to the facts of the present case. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of ITAT, Madras Bench, we hold that the prize won by the assessee did not amount to winnings from lottery and therefore, the same did not fall in the category of Income mentioned in clause (ix) of sub-section (24) of section 2 of I.T. Act, 1961. Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the impugned addition. We confirm his order and dismiss all the grounds of appeal of the revenue. 6. Mr. Rajesh Katoch, learned counsel for the revenueappellant has vehemently argued that the definition of expression income in clause (ix) of sub-section (24) of Section 2 of the Act is not exhaustive but only illustrative as is patent from the use of word includes . Mr. Katoch has submitted that it cannot be regarded as exhaustive definition and is capable of being construed to include the income earned from winning a prize l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lause,- (i) lottery includes winning from prizes awarded to any person by draw of lots or by chance or in any other manner whatsoever, under any scheme or arrangement by whatever name called; (ii) card game and other game of any sort includes any game show, an entertainment programme on television or electronic mode, in which people complete to win prizes or any other similar game; 10. A perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that the explanation was added with effect from 1.4.2002 and there was no provision to give the explanation retrospective effect. Therefore, it would not apply to the assessment year 1996-97. Moreover, if the prizes awarded to any person were to be included in the expression lottery then there was no necessity of adding the explanation to include prize money like the one in question in the expression lottery . 11. The argument raised on behalf of the revenue based on the judgment of Hon ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of G.R. Karthikeyan (supra), has not impressed us. It is no doubt true that the expression income is illustrative, as is evident from clauses (i) to (ix), yet it cannot be concluded that every earning woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
