R.R. Mishra, J. - (1.) THE present reference relates to the assessment year 1972-73. In the said order of assessment, the assessee was shown as an individual and, besides dealing in purchase and sale of Mainpuri tobacco, the assessee also used to earn commission income on sale of lottery tickets. Admittedly, no account has been maintained by the assessee. For the year in dispute, the accounting period ended on March 31, 1972. On the lottery tickets sold by the assessee, he earned bonus of Rs. 60,000. Accordingly, a letter dated March 30, 1971, was received by the assessee from the Deputy Director, Lotteries, U.P., Lucknow, requiring him to appear before him on April 1, 1971 and collect bonus money. Admittedly, the bonus money was collected by the assessee after April 1, 1971. In this reference, it is not in dispute that, in so far as the commission on sale of lottery tickets is concerned, the assessee is liable to be taxed. THE dispute between the parties in this reference centres round the payment of bonus money. Accordingly, in this reference, the following two questions of law have been referred : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in treating the receipt of Rs. 60,000 being bonus money as taxable income and not a casual income ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in treating the income for the assessment year 1972-73?"
(2.) WE have heard Shri Vikram Gulati, learned counsel for the assessee. His submission is that although the commission on sale of lottery tickets may be taxable, yet, it could not be contemplated on the sale of lottery tickets itself that such a ticket will also earn bonus. Hence, the receipt of bonus by the assessee on the sale of lottery tickets was a casual income. On the aforesaid facts, we, however, do not agree with the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the assessee. Admittedly, the assessee was earning commission regularly since 1969 on the sale of lottery tickets and, on the sale of the lottery tickets, he also earned bonus. In our opinion, the earning of the said bonus on the sale of such tickets was an activity which was incidental to and connected with the business of sale of lottery tickets. Shri Vikram Gulati, during the course of his submission, also placed reliance on the case of Janab A Syed Jalal Sahib v. CIT [1960] 39 ITR 660 (Mad). The ratio of the said case is, however, clearly distinguishable inasmuch as, in the said case, the assessee who carried on the business of manufacturing and selling beedies attended horse races regularly every year and indulged in betting and entering in the races of horses, some of which were his own and some of which he owned in partnership with others. In that case, no other income was earned besides the income from horse races. In the present case, the assessee, besides earning commission on the sale of lottery tickets, also earned bonus on the very same tickets. In this view of the matter, the aforesaid decision is of no avail to learned counsel for the assessee. Thus, on the above facts and the view taken by us, we are of the opinion that question No. 1 referred to us has to be answered in the affirmative by saying that the Tribunal was justified in treating the receipt of Rs. 60,000, being bonus money, as taxable income and not as a casual income. The other question we have to consider is as to whether the said income was liable to be treated as income for the year in dispute. Admittedly, the assessee was not maintaining any accounts. It fact, the Tribunal has also recorded a finding that the assessee was adopting 'cash' system and not 'mercantile'. The said bonus was received by the assessee after April 1, 1971, which clearly shows that the money was received in the assessment year in question. Therefore, our answer to question No. 2 is also in the affirmative by holding that the Tribunal was justified in treating the bonus income as assessable for the assessment year 1972-73. Both the questions referred to this court are answered accordingly against the assessee and the finding of the Tribunal is upheld. The assessee will pay costs of Rs. 300 to the Department.;