Y.R.MEENA, J. - (1.) THESE seven connected appeals involve the common issue, therefore, we heard and disposed of all these appeals by this common order.
(2.) THESE appeals are admitted on the questions of law, which read as under: For asst. yr. 1988 -89 in ITA No. 113 of 2002 '1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was any material on record for CIT(A) to direct to tax the lottery amount in the hands of all three brothers? 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified and right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the additions made under s. 69 in the hands of one assessee substantively by the AO on the basis of enquiry conducted ?' For asst. yr. 1988 -89 in WTA No. 1 of 2002 '1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified and right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the additions made in the hands of assessee in the wealth -tax assessment which was based upon enquiry conducted by AO ?' For asst. yr. 1988 -89 in ITA No. 128 of 2003 '1. Whether there was any material on record for CIT(A) to hold that the lottery amount in the hands of all three brothers is to be substantively taxed for the year in question ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified and right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the additions made under Section 69 in the hands of one assessee substantively by the AO on the basis of enquiry conducted ? Whether the Tribunal and CIT(A) were right in law in taking a view different than the view of the AO, when the assessee has failed to prove the authenticity of the purchase of lottery ticket and on the basis of evidence the AO has made additions under Section 69 of the Act ?' For asst. yr. 1988 -89 in ITA No. 55 of 2004 '1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified and right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the additions made under Section 69 in the hands of one assessee substantively by the AO on the basis of enquiry conducted ?' For asst. yr. 1989 -90 in ITA No. 56 of 2004 '1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was any material on record for CIT(A) to direct to tax the lottery amount in the hands of all three brothers ? 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified and right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the additions made under Section 69 in the hands of one assessee substantively by the AO on the basis of enquiry conducted ?' For asst. yr. 1989 -90 in ITA No. 131 of 2002 '1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was any material on record for CIT(A) to direct to tax the lottery amount in the hands of all three brothers ? 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified and right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the additions made under Section 69 in the hands of one assessee substantively by the AO on the basis of enquiry conducted ? 3. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal and CIT(A) were right in law in taking different view than AO when the assessee has failed to prove about the authenticity of purchase of lottery and on the basis of evidence the AO has made additions under Section 69 of the Act ? 4. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in upholding that AO has not conducted the enquiry as per direction whereas in fact the AO has made all efforts to carry out the directions ?' For asst. yr. 1989 -90 in ITA No. 127 of 2003 '1. Whether there was any material on record for CIT(A) to hold that the lottery amount in the hands of all three brothers is to be substantively taxed for the year in question ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified and right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the additions made under Section 69 in the hands of one assessee substantively by the AO on the basis of enquiry conducted ? 3. Whether the Tribunal and CIT(A) were right in law in taking a view different than the view of the AO, when the assessee has failed to prove the authenticity of the purchase of lottery ticket and on the basis of evidence the AO has made additions under Section 69 of the Act ?' 3. A search was conducted on 12th Jan., 1988 at the residence of assessee, Shri Suresh Kumar, Shri Bal Kishan and Shri Satish Kumar. All of them are real brothers and amongst other incriminating documents seized, a loose paper was inventoried as E -16, p. 46 contains the contents with the lottery ticket. The draw of lottery held on 17th Dec., 1987. In the inventory E -16, the projected figures Rs. 1,11,00,000 and Rs. 88,80,000 have been shown. The case of the Department is that they have purchased the ticket after draw of lottery and converted the black money into white.
(3.) THE case of Suresh Kumar is that he along with his two brothers namely, Bal Kishan and Satish Kumar purchased the lottery ticket and the lottery draw was open in the names of these three brothers. In the return filed, they have disclosed 1/3rd share of Rs. 88.80 lakhs in the hands of each brother in the asst. yr. 1989 -90. The AO has taxed the entire amount of lottery in the hands of Suresh Kumar in the substantive basis in the year 1988 -89 and two third of that amount has been taxed on protective basis in the hands' of Satish Kumar and Bal Kishan.;