Lottery ticket bonus ruled taxable income, not casual. Assessable for 1972-73.

The court held that the bonus money received on the sale of lottery tickets was taxable income and not casual income. The bonus was deemed to be incidental to the business of selling lottery tickets, unlike a previous case involving income solely from horse races. Additionally, the bonus income was considered assessable for the assessment year 1972-73 due to the assessee's receipt of the bonus after April 1, 1971, and their accounting method. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, and the assessee was directed to pay costs to the Department.

---

---

Issues:
1. Taxability of bonus money received on the sale of lottery tickets.
2. Treatment of bonus income for the assessment year 1972-73.

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: The first issue revolves around whether the receipt of Rs. 60,000 as bonus money on the sale of lottery tickets should be considered taxable income or casual income. The assessee argued that since commission on lottery ticket sales was taxable, the bonus should be considered casual income. However, the court disagreed, stating that the bonus earned was incidental to the business of selling lottery tickets. The court distinguished a previous case where the income earned was solely from horse races, unlike the present scenario where the assessee earned both commission and bonus on lottery tickets. Consequently, the court held that the bonus money was taxable income and not casual income.

Issue 2: The second issue pertains to whether the bonus income should be treated as assessable income for the assessment year 1972-73. The assessee did not maintain accounts and followed a 'cash system' rather than a 'mercantile' system. The bonus money was received after April 1, 1971, falling within the assessment year in question. Considering these facts, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the bonus income was assessable for the assessment year 1972-73. Both questions were answered against the assessee, and the Tribunal's finding was upheld, with the assessee directed to pay costs to the Department.

---