TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... car. The assessee claimed that the said ticket was jointly purchased by three persons and, therefore, the assessee had only 1/3rd share in the prize amount. This plea of the assessee was not accepted by the AO for the reason that the assessee failed to produce any evidence that the ticket was purchased by three persons. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) who set aside the assessment on the ground that other two persons had also filed affidavits as co-owners having purchased the tickets jointly with the assessee and the AO failed to record any finding about the acceptability of such evidence. He, therefore, set aside the assessment and restored the matter to the AO for conducting proper enquiries. 3. During the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tails as to how the prize money received by them was utilized. The AO had not placed any material or evidence on record to rebut the evidence filed before him. It was also submitted that in the statement and affidavit of broker through whom the car was sold, he admitted that all the three co-owners approached him for sale of the car and the said car was sold by him for Rs. 1,35,000 to the outside party. On receipt of sale proceeds of Rs. 1,35,000, the amount was distributed amongst three persons in equal shares and he received commission from three persons. Thus, it was submitted that the AO was not justified in including the entire amount in the hands of the assessee. Accepting the contentions of the assessee, the learned CIT(A) has held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich the car was claimed to have been sold. In my view, it is an important evidence because, in the statement as well as in the affidavit, it has clearly been mentioned/stated by the broker that all the three owners of the car approached him for the sale of car and the said car was sold by him to the outside party and the purchaser has given the sale amount in cash and after deducting the commission payable to him, they have divided the amount equally before him and the co-owners have received Rs. 42,000 each as their shares. Admittedly, the AO has not rebutted this fact/evidence and in such circumstances there is no reason as to why such evidence is not acceptable. 4.2 In view of the above discussions and also considering the entire fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on the contradictions in the statements of other two co-owners, viz., Shri Keshav Dawra and Shri Daulat Ram. Shri Prem Raheja had stated that while bringing the Maruti car from Chandigarh, the car was driven by three of them turn by turn whereas Shri Keshav Dawra had stated that the car was driven only by Shri Prem Raheja and not by other two persons. However, the basic fact that the lottery ticket was purchased jointly had been admitted by three of them. Shri Prem Raheja had given Rs. 55, Shri Daulat Ram had given Rs. 20 and Shri Keshav Dawra had given Rs. 15. The fact who had driven the car is not very relevant. Besides, there could be contradictions for the reason that the statements of Shri Keshav Dawra and Shri Daulat Ram were recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
