D.K. Nawlakha vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax
2001 Latest Caselaw 1092 Del

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.

1. Pursuant to the direction given by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "E", Delhi (in short "the Tribunal"), has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court:

"(1) Whether there was material on record to justify the conclusion that there was no agreement between the petitioner and Smt. Promila Nawlakha to jointly purchase the jackpot ticket before the race on January 7, 1973 ?

(2) Whether there was any material to hold that the winnings from the jackpot ticket belonged exclusively to the assesses and did not belong in equal shares to the assessed and Smt. Promila Nawlakha, particularly, in view of the affidavit and the conduct of the parties in regard to the winnings ?

(3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the conclusion of the Tribunal to the effect that the assessed is the exclusive owner of the jackpot winnings and Smt. Promila Nawlakha could not be the owner of half share in the winning is perverse keeping in view the prices of the jackpot ticket and the conduct of the parties in relation to the winnings ?"

2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1973-74.

3. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows :

The assessed is an individual. For the assessment year in question, he had excluded a sum of Rs. 42,996 as jackpot winnings from Royal Calcutta Turf Club claiming that he had won the jackpot jointly with his sister-in-law, Smt. Promila Nawlakha. Both the assessed and his sister-in-law filed affidavits stating that the jackpot ticket was purchased jointly by them and thereafter on winning the jackpot, the amount was equally shared by them. The Income-tax Officer (in short "the ITO"), examined both the assessed and his sister-in-law twice. He found that there was great variance in their versions, more particularly, as regards the point of time when Smt. Promila gave her share of money for purchasing the ticket. He held that the entire jackpot winning had to be taxed in the hands of the assessed. The matter was carried in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short "the CIT(A)"), which authority also affirmed the conclusion of the Income-tax Officer. The matter was carried in further appeal before the Tribunal, which endorsed the views of the Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). A prayer for reference was made under Section 256(1) of the Act, which was turned down. But as noted above this court directed a reference on being moved under Section 256(2) of the Act.

We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessed.

Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the conclusions of the Tribunal are essentially factual giving rise to no question of law. It is pointed out that what appears to have weighed with this court while directing a reference is reflected in the order dated May 19, 1982. The same is as follows : "Particularly, we are impressed by the fact that the Tribunal has assumed that the jackpot ticket costs Rs. 8,000 whereas actually the ticket costs Rs. 5 or Rs. 10."

4. We find from the various orders, that the assessed's claim itself was that the cost of jackpot ticket was Rs. 8,000, otherwise the question of what was the share of Smt. Promila Nawlakha would not have arisen. As a matter of fact, in the assessment order the Assessing Officer has noted while computing the income from jackpot winning that the cost of the jackpot ticket as claimed was Rs. 8,000. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no material to show that in fact there was an agreement between the assessed and his sister-in-law for sharing the jackpot winnings and/or that any contribution was

made by her for purchase of the ticket. The conclusions are essentially factual giving rise to no question of law. Accordingly, we decline to answer the question.

5. Reference is accordingly disposed of.