TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (7) TMI 59
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isclosed a total income of Rs. 8,822. In Part IV of the return of income, the assessee claimed exemption in respect of a sum of Rs. 70,000 on the ground that it represented income of casual nature. According to the assessee, the said sum of Rs. 70,000 represented prize money received by him in cross-word puzzle competition conducted by one "Kundan Sabda Sparda" ("Sparda" for short) and, as such, the said sum was not taxable. The Income-tax Officer called upon the assessee to produce before him the proprietor of Sparda along with his books of account in order to verify the claim made by the assessee. The Income-tax Officer addressed several letters to the assessee to which the assessee's representative replied by saying that all the document....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he sums of Rs. 70,000 and Rs. 2,100 in his total income, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, confirming the view of the Income-tax Officer, held that there was enough material on record to hold that sum of Rs. 70,000 received by the assessee was not genuine prize money, as claimed by him, but was unaccounted money which was shown as prize money. He also upheld the addition of Rs. 2,100 added for the commission paid to N. S. Patel. Being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short). The Tribunal examined the evidence on record in det....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tances of the case, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in basing its conclusions on evidence which was not brought to the notice of the assessee and the veracity of which was not offered for being tested at the hands of the assessee by cross-examination ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal is invalid in law because it is based on certain information which was never put to the assessee on certain depositions of witnesses who were never offered for cross-examination to the assessee ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the prize of Rs. 70,000 paid by Kundan Sabda Sparda Harifai to the assessee was taxable income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce. We do not find any substance in the contention of the assessee. It is not correct to say that the Tribunal had relied on the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses and the evidence of other witnesses in reaching the conclusion which it did. The conclusion of the Tribunal is based on the testimony of N. S. Patel, proprietor of Sparda. N. S. Patel has deposed that parties who submitted entries with the correct solution of the cross-word puzzle were given prizes by cheques which were cleared with their own money. Parties who wanted to bring out their unaccounted money, approached through their agents and such parties gave money for the payment of the prizes declared in their favour. It also appears from his evidence that he did not have mo....