9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (11) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly purchased this ticket before the Draw. In fact, it has not even been established that this ticket had transferred from the Sub-Agent at Hyderabad to Punjab and hence I have no hesitation in holding that the assessee purchased the winning ticket by paying sum of over Rs. one lac i.e. Rs. One lac plus premium, on the purchase of the ticket which has already won the lottery prize. It may be mentioned that the assessee and her husband regularly had won lottery prizes of various lotteries every year. Thus, I treat Rs. 1,10,000 (Rs. One lac. prize money + Rs. 10,000 premium) as investment from undisclosed source for the purchase of this winning ticket. The assessee has already disclosed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as winning from lottery and on this she has claimed deduction under s. 80TT amounting to Rs. 49,750. This deduction is not allowable to the assessee. Since I have already held that she has in fact not won lottery ticket but has purchased the ticket which had already won the lottery prize after paying an amount equal to the prize money and the premium on it, the same is added back as income from undisclosed sources." He therefore, caused an addition of Rs. 1,10,000 to the income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ticket which was available with her She has also explained in a reasonable manner as to the circumstances in which she had purchased the ticket and from the lottery stall at Amritsar who in turn had also confirmed to have sold the ticket. Further circumstances and place from which the prize has been won does not support the theory of the ITO that she had purchased the ticket after the Draw. The ITO's reliance on the decision of the IT Tribunal, Madras Bench in case of S.M. Hameed Abdul Cader vs. ITO (ITA No. 1278 (Mad) of 1975-76) would also not be helpful inasmuch the facts in those cases were different because in the Madras case the ITO was able to establish that the actual winner of the prize was a petty worker in a local hotel who was holding the ticket at the time the result was drawn and the said employee was not traceable and he later died in a Hospital. On the other hand in the Bombay case the prize was won in a Race-course but the assessee did not know anything about the Jackpot and their Rules and the Races. However, in the case of the appellate it has not been established as to who was the person who was originally declared as the prize winner and the evidence that sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with these materials before they could be used to draw a finding in the assessment. According to him, the ITO has not only proceeded on the basis of surmises and conjectures but used materials which he did not allow the assessee to look at it during the assessment. 4. Having heard the rival submissions, we are not inclined to find force in the submission of theRevenue. The the Revenue has no doubt pointed out that the assessee has not been able to prove beyond from whom she had purchased the winning ticket No. K. 1634336 pertaining to seventy fifth draw of Karnataka State Lottery, that there were inconsistencies in the Statements of the assessee, Shri V.K. Sareen and that on support came from the statements of Shri R.K. Gupta for the claim of the assessee that she had purchased the ticket from a lottery dealer near Golden Temple in Amritsar, but it is not possible for us to disregard the testimony of material already brought on record. The one indisputable fact admitted by both sides is that the assessee Smt. Satish Bala Malhotra had presented the winning ticket No. K. 1634336 after the Seventy fifth draw and claimed the prize of Rs. 1 lac under the ticket. The factum of payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchase of the winning tickets were made after the draw on 15th Dec., 1975 and that purchases were made from persons other than dealers. The ITO has not brought any material to show or indicate who were the original buyers of the tickets. According to him or how much consideration was passed on by the assessee to acquire the winning ticket to support his assumption. In absence of any material to show that there were other persons or a person who laid claim to the ownership of the ticket it is not possible for us to find that the assessee had not purchased the winning ticket or had purchased it after the draw and discredit her claim that she and her husband had purchased the four tickets bearing the serials from 1634335 to 1634338. We cannot find any support for the finding of the ITO from the inconsistencies he had pointed out in statement of the assessee about the exact situation of the stall from where she had purchased the aforesaid ticket. When one buys a lottery ticket from a stall he does not normally note down every detail with precision including the name of the vendor. exact location of the stall etc. So that she or be may reply without any inconsistency in a cross examin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
