These appeals relate to assessment year 1978-79. Appeal No. 1197 is by assessee and other No. 1767 is by department. 2. facts of case in brief are that assessee purchased two small savings prize bonds of Bank of Madurai for Rs. 500 each on 8-1-1976. In respect of one of deposits, assessee received Rs. 50,000 as third prize on 24-9-1977 and certificate of Bank of Madurai was filed before ITO. There was no dispute regarding receipt of prize money from Bank of Madurai. But only dispute in this case is regarding status in which prize money was received. claim of assessee is that as matter of chance, he got commission of Rs. 540 from Usman & Brothers on 29-12-1975 and about Rs. 500 commission was received from M.T. & Sons. Also in status of HUF, assessee was being assessed for last decade and so but commission income was utilised by assessee for purchase of small savings prize bonds of Bank of Madurai of Rs. 500 each on 9-1-1976. assessee filed affidavit on 15-9-1980 that this money belonged to him in his individual capacity. members of HUF also filed affidavits stating that deposits were made by Dharam Prakash Jain in his individual capacity and said deposits did not belong to HUF. 3. assessee filed return, declaring interest income of Rs. 1,637. It was stated that winning from lottery of Rs. 50,000 was not taxable. ITO was of view that said amount of Rs. 50,000 was taxable under section 2(24)(ix) of Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). He also held that said amount was to be taxed in hands of HUF. 4. learned AAC in appeal held that winning from lottery was assessable in hands of assessee (in his individual capacity) under section 2(24)(ix). 5. Before Tribunal, only point for determination was whether winning from lottery was taxable under section 2(24)(ix). On behalf of assessee, it was contended that though prize was won but winning cannot be equated with prize. According to learned counsel under existing provision of Income-tax Act, receipts which are casual and of non- recurring nature are exempt from tax except where receipts constitute capital gains, or arise from business or exercise of profession, vocation or occupation or are by way of additions to remuneration of employee. In view of this exemption, no tax is currently chargeable in respect of winnings from lotteries, crossword puzzles, races, card games or from gambling or betting. According to learned counsel, in present case, no gambling was involved and as such present case is not hit by provisions of section 2(24)(ix). learned counsel mainly relied on ratio of decision of Supreme Court in case of State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala [1957] 2 MLJ 87. Reference was also made to ratio of decisions in cases of CIT v. Sanjiv Kumar [1980] 123 ITR 187 (Punj. & Har.), Amara Kondaiah v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 73 (AP) and Bhola Nath Kesari v. Director of State Lotteries, [1974] 95 ITR 171 (All.). 6. learned departmental representative supported order of AAC. It was submitted by him that sub-clause (ix) which was inserted in section 2(24), with effect from assessment year 1972-73 enacts that income includes any income from lotteries, crossword puzzles, races including horse races, card games and other games of any sort or from gambling or betting of any form or nature whatsoever, while amended section 10(3) of Act provides that winnings from lotteries are not exempt from tax as being of casual and non- recurring nature. Thus, learned departmental representative contended that in view of amended section 10(3), winnings from lotteries in present case is taxable and finding of AAC to this effect is quite correct. departmental representative contended that decisions relied on by learned counsel for assessee are not helpful to him but they help revenue. It was further contended that ratio of decision of Supreme Court is not applicable on facts of present case. 7. We have heard parties and perused entire material on record. facts of case are not in dispute. They were correctly stated in orders of authorities below. Under Small Savings Prize Deposit Scheme, person was required to deposit Rs. 500 or its multiples just once. Under said Small Savings Prize Deposit Scheme, any person could have luck of draw for one of really worth winning prizes. first prize was Rs. 2 lakhs, second for one of really worth winning prizes. first prize was Rs. 2 lakhs, second prize was 1 lakh and third prize was Rs. 50,000 under said Small Savings Prize Deposit Scheme. 8. [This para is not reproduced here as it involves minor issue.] 9. other point for consideration is whether said winning is taxable under section 2(24)(ix). Prior to 1972, winning from lotteries used to be exempt from income-tax as being receipt of casual and non-recurring nature. By Finance Act, 1972, certain amendments were made to Income-tax Act, 1961, s result of which winnings from lotteries, and certain other games, gambling or betting also became taxable. following amendment was made in Income-tax Act, In section 2(24), which defines income, new sub-clause (ix) was added which reads as under: " (ix) any winnings from lotteries, crossword puzzles, races including horse races, card games and other games of any sort or from gambling or betting of any form or nature whatsoever; " Section 10(3), which provides that in computing total income of any person any receipts which are of casual and non-recurring nature shall not be included, was replaced by following: " In computing total income of previous year of any person, any income falling within any of following clauses shall not be included-- (1) and (2) ** ** ** (3) any receipts which are of casual and non-recurring nature, not being winnings from lotteries, to extent such receipts do not exceed one thousand rupees in aggregate: " Section 56(2) provides as to what income shall be chargeable to income- tax under head 'Income from other sources'. following clause (ib) was added to this section: " (ib) income referred to in sub-clause (ix) of clause (24) of section 2. " 10. It is not disputed that word 'lottery' is not defined under Income- tax Act. In Webster's New International Dictionary, word 'lottery' has been defined to mean scheme by which one or more prizes are distributed by chance among persons, who have paid or promised consideration for chance to win them, usually as determined by members on tickets as drawn from lottery wheel. In Legal and Commercial Dictionary by S.D. Mitra, word 'lottery' has been defined as under: " lottery has been compendiously defined as scheme for distribution of money by chance. It usually, if not always, takes form of creation of fund by participants in lottery, who buy tickets or pay subscription in consideration of offer by promoters to award them prize on some contingency happening whereof depends on chance. " 11. lottery is scheme for distribution of prizes by lot or chance. In Corpus Juris Secundum, word 'lottery' has been defined as follows: " Pooling proceeds derived from chances or tickets taken or purchased and then allotting such proceeds or part of them or their equivalent by chance to one or more such takers or purchasers are indicia of lottery. " 12. From definitions of word 'lottery', as given by various authors, reference to which has already been made, it is clear that element of chance is one of important relevant factors for considering whether particular scheme of things falls within definition of word 'lottery'. lottery and wagering contract are two distinct things. scheme may amount to lottery though none of competitors is loser. scheme would be lottery even if prize money came out of interest earned from subscribers' contributions. touchstone is that if subscribers have chance of winning prize, it can make no difference whether prizes are paid circuitously from interest earned on subscribers' contributions or are paid directly from those contributions. risk of loss is not necessary. If we apply aforesaid proposition on facts of present case, it would be clear that assessee by chance won prize of Rs. 50,000 in Small Savings Prize Deposit Scheme. 13. In view of amendment made in sections 2(24) and 10(3), referred to above, it is clear that winnings from lotteries, crossword puzzles, etc., became taxable as income from other sources at concessional rate, concession being that tax on such winnings is leviable only on half prize money minus Rs. 5,000. 14. At this stage, we may also state that income is not necessarily recurrent return from definite source; in fact, it may never recur at all and source way never yield periodic return. isolated adventure may constitute business. Even casual and non-recurring receipt may be income, though it is partly exempt from taxation in certain circumstances under section 10(3). Anything which can properly be described as income is taxable under Act unless it is expressly exempted. Reference may be made to ratio of decision in case of Rani Amrit Kunwar v. CIT [1946] 14 ITR 561 (All.). 15. In view of aforesaid discussion, winning of Rs. 50,000 from lottery, crossword puzzles is definitely income and is taxable under section 2(24)(ix). 16. decision in CIT v. G.R. Karthikeyan [1980] 124 ITR 85 (Mad,) is n o t applicable on facts of present case. In that case, assessee participated in race which involved skill in performance of driving of vehicle. He had to cover very long distance and had to qualify by getting least of penalty points. idea obviously was to encourage motorists to comply with all regulations. It was not mere speed that counts. Perhaps, in said case, speed would be only secondary thing for winning race, in sense that he had to complete race within particular time but emphasis is on least number of penalty points being incurred by motorists concerned. 17. other decision relied on by learned counsel for assessee in case of R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala is also not applicable in present case. In that case, their Lordships of Supreme Court were called upon to consider validity of Bombay Lotteries & Prize Competitions Control and Tax Act, as amended by Act XXX of 1952. question was whether Act fell within entry 34, List II of Seventh Schedule of Constitution of India, viz., gambling. said decision was given by Lordships of Supreme Court on facts of that case. 18. We may state here that it is duty of Court and Tribunal in construing statute to give effect to intention of Legislature. If, therefore, giving literal meaning to word used by draftsman, particularly in penal statute, would defeat object of Legislature which is to suppress mischief, Court and Tribunal can depart from dictionary meaning or even popular meaning of word and instead give it meaning which will advance remedy and suppress mischief. Reference may be made to ratio of decision in case of Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration AIR 1965 SC 871. 19. In decision in Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa AIR 1975 SC 17, Supreme Court ruled as under: " As usual references have been made to dictionaries but quite often it is not possible to hold dictionary in one hand and statute to be interpreted in other for ascertaining import and intent of word or expression used by Legislature. shade of meaning of word, its different connotations and collocations which one finds in dictionary does not relieve us of responsibility of having to make ultimate choice of selecting right meaning. We choose that meaning which is most apt in context, colour and diction in which word is used. use of dictionary ad lib without analysis of entire Act, its purpose and its intent, for ascertaining meaning in which Legislature could have used word or expression may not lead us to right conclusion.... " In view of amendments made in sections 2(24) and 10(3) discussed above, all winnings from lotteries, crossword puzzles, etc., are taxable as income from other sources. 20. For reasons discussed above, both appeals are dismissed. *** DHARAM PRAKASH JAIN. v. INCOME TAX OFFICER