JUDGMENT
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.
1. In pursuance of the direction of this court in T. C. P. No. 195 of 1981, dated November 2, 1991, the Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for our consideration under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the relevant previous year for the race winning would be the financial year and the relevant assessment year would be 1972-73 and not 1973-74 as contended by the Department.”
2. The assessee is an individual. He won a jackpot of Rs. 86,014 on November 7, 1971. The assessee’s year of account in respect of business carried on by him was the Diwali year, which ended on December 5, 1972. The original assessment for the assessment year 1973-74 was completed on November 7, 1977, determining his total income at Rs. 30,510. The assessment was later reopened for bringing to tax the above jackpot winning under the provisions of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The asses-see contended before the Income-tax Officer that in respect of the above jackpot winning the previous year should be taken as the financial year, since no separate accounts were maintained for that source of income and the said sum was not assessable for the assessment year 1973-74. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the assessee’s contention, but on appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the assessee’s claim holding that the assessee has clearly stated in Part III of his report filed in the return for the assessment for the previous year ending on March 31, 1972. The Revenue went on appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal, following the order in the case of one Rashmi Kamdar in I. T. A. No. 2160; (Mds) of 1977-78 dated December 16, 1978, held that the relevant previous year for the race winning should be the financial year and upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). On the basis of the direction of this court, the question of law has been referred to us for consideration. The order of the Tribunal in Rashmi Kamdar’s case was the subject-matter of consideration before this court in a tax case and this court in CIT V. Rashmi Kamdar [1996] 217 ITR 559, upholding the order of the Appellate Tribunal held that the jackpot income accrued to and was received by the assessee before the first date of April, 1972, and fell in the accounting period 1971-72 relevant for the assessment year 1972-73 and not for the assessment year 1973-74. This court also held that the Appellate Tribunal, was right in excluding the income from race winnings from tax for the assessment year 1973-74. As the earlier order of the Appellate Tribunal was upheld by this court in CIT v. Rashmi Kamdar [1996] 217 ITR 559, and the Appellate Tribunal in the instant case followed his earlier order in Rashmi Kamdar’s case, we are of the view that the same result should follow here also, the factual situation obtaining in the two cases being not in any way different and consequently the question of law referred to us should be answered against the Department.
3. Consequently, by following the earlier decision of this court in CIT v. Rashmi Kamdar [1996] 217 ITR 559, we answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.