VIKRAM NATH,J. - (1.) THE relevant facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner had won a lottery of Rs. 2,00,000, result of which was declared on 22nd Jan., 1992, under the scheme 'Sahara Golden Key' run by the Sahara India. The prize money was paid to the petitioner in February, 1992, i.e., before 31st March, 1992, which would mean the financial year 1991 -92 and the asst. yr. 1992 -93. The petitioner in her return for the asst. yr. 1992 -93 disclosed the receipt of the prize money and also paid the tax due on it. The assessment order for the asst. yr. 1992 -93 was passed on 20th March, 2002.
(2.) IT appears that the AO, on some misconception thought that as the petitioner has won the lottery in January, 1992, the receipt of the prize money would form part of the asst. yr. 1991 -92. The assessing authority passed ex parte assessment order for the asst. yr. 1991 -92 and included the amount of prize money won by the petitioner in the lottery result dt. 22nd Jan., 1992, and accordingly, raised the demand, vide order dt. 3rd Feb., 1999. The assessing authority further passed an ex parte penalty order on 30th Aug., 1999, under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the asst. yr. 1991 -92 on the ground of concealment of the income received by the petitioner on account of winning the lottery. There is no dispute with regard to the assessment order for the asst. yr. 1992 -93, which was the relevant assessment year in which the lottery had been won and the prize money was received by the petitioner and duly disclosed in her return. However, with regard to the ex parte assessment order and the ex parte penalty order for the asst. yr. 1991 -92, the petitioner, as she was not duly served by the assessment and penalty orders, could not take recourse of filing appeal in time. However, she filed two revisions before the CIT under Section 264 of the Act. Both these revisions were dismissed by the CIT on the ground of delay vide order dt. 28th March, 2002. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 154 of the Act for rectification of the mistake in the order of the CIT but the same was also rejected. It is against these orders the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) HEARD Sri S.D. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel representing the Department of IT.;