9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as income ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax has no jurisdiction under section 263 to cancel the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer as it has merged with the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner?" The dispute relates to the assessment year 1981-82. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows : The assessee is an individual and derives income from his profession as a photographer. An all-India photography contest was organised, where the assessee was a participant, won the first prize and received cash award of Rs. 30,000. He claimed that the said receipt did not bear the character of income and was, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. Placing reliance on the decision of the Madras High Court in G. R. Karthikeyan's case [1980] 124 ITR 85, the Tribunal held that the amount was not taxable. On being moved for reference the questions as set out above have been referred for the opinion of this court. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessee in spite of notice. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the amount in question would be covered under section 2(24)(ix) read with section 28. It was submitted that winning the prize was in the contest of skill and is directly related to the ability of the professional and, therefore, chargeable to income-tax. We notice that G. R. Karthikeyan's case [1980] 124 ITR 85 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entered the contest to win it. What he got was a return for his skill and endurance. It was "income" construed in its widest sense. Though it was casual in nature, it was nevertheless income. The receipt of Rs. 22,000 constituted "income" as defined in section 2(24) and could be brought to tax. In view of the above, the answer to the first question is in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. So far as the second question is concerned, it is squarely covered by the decision of the apex court in CIT v.. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. [1998] 231 ITR 50 and of this court in CIT v. Eurasia Publishing House (P.) Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 381. In Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. case [19981 231 ITR 50 (SC) , it was held as follows : "The ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
