2014 (10) TMI 532

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessment year 1997-98,claiming following 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 vie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e framing assessment for the assessment year 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 u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e 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), (s....