9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing substantial questions of law:- i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar was right in law in treating the receipt of 1 kg. Gold (total cost Rs. 4,37,750/-) against the winning coupon as non taxable by relying on Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Deputy Director of Small Savings (2004) 266 ITR 27 wherein TDS was not deducted because of consumer goods? ii)Whether the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar was right in holding that winning of 1 kgs. of gold through draw of lots did not constitute income from lottery, whereas, it did constitute lottery income in view of section 115BB read with section 2(24) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1997-98. Not satisfied with the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 1.11.2004, Annexure 'C', the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal and deleted the addition of Rs. 4,37,750/-. Hence the instant appeal by the revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue referred to judgment of the Apex Court in CIT, Madras vs. G.R.Karthikeyan, AIR 1993 SC 1671 to contend that prize money received by the participant in a motor rally was held to be income and was exigible to tax. On the aforesaid premises,it was urged that in the present case, the Tribunal had erred in accepting the appeal of the assessee. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee relied upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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), (supra) has not impressed us. It is no doubt true that the expression ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the case of Deputy Director of Small Savings (supra) and Division Bench judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of B.K. Suresh (supra). In both the cases the prize money has been won under the Saving Schemes. Accordingly, it has to be held that the incentive prize received by the assesseerespondent on account of the coupon given to him on the strength of Small Savings Certificate would not fall within the definition of 'lottery' and would, thus, not be included in the expression 'income'. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Madras and Karnataka High Court." 7. Similar view had been expressed by Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Deputy Director of Small Savings, (2004) 266 ITR 27 and Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
