JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate for the appellant.
2. The following question has been raised in this appeal.
Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the tax levied by the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1) read with Section 194B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?
3. The case of the assessee earlier was that the amount distributed as prize by draw of lots did not form part of the term “lottery” which is defined under Section 2(24)(ix) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This has been made a part of lottery after amendment with effect from April 1, 2002. This amendment was not made at the relevant point of time, therefore, there is no application. The order is passed under Section 201(1) and under Section 194B directing the assessee to pay the tax which has not been deducted at the time of payment of the amount by draw of lots. These are the facts given by the Tribunal as under:
7. I have heard the parties and perused the record. The amendment to Section 2(24) (ix) is very explicit by the Explanation which has been amended to be included, which was not earlier perceived to be included in the word ‘lottery’. In other words, winning of prize by draw of lots or by chance has been included in the ambit of the word ‘lottery’ with effect from April 1, 2002, by the expression intended by the Legislature. Therefore, I find merit in the arguments of learned Counsel for the assessee that the winning of prize by lots stood included in the lottery with effect from this date. The assessee’s case fell to the period prior to the amendment, therefore, the provisions of Section 2(24) (ix) and, consequently, Section 194B, proviso, were not applicable to the assessee’s case. Consequently, it is held that the assessee was not liable to TDS on such distribution of prize by drawing of lots. Since there is no TDS liability, there can be no question of levy of interest, which is deleted. Since I have held this on the basis of the first contention of the assessee, there is no need to go into other supplementary contentions. In view thereof, the appeals of the asses-sees are allowed.
4. Admittedly, the assessment year is 1997-98 and this amendment has been made with effect from April 1, 2002, by the Finance Act, 2001. By this insertion of the Explanation prize by draw of lots is treated as lottery after this amendment. When this amendment was not in force at the relevant point of time, we see no justification to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.
5. Hence, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.