This is appeal filed by assessee against order of CIT(A) dt. 9th June, 2003 for asst. yr. 2001-02, in matter of order passed under s. 201 and s. 201(1A) of IT Act, 1961, wherein following two grounds have been raised by assessee: "(1) That CIT(A) without appreciating facts of case and on incorrect interpretation of law applicable has erred in confirming that tax at source should have been deducted on initial exemption of Rs. 2,500 and cost of winning ticket while calculating TDS under s. 194BB. (2) That CIT(A) was wrong to confirm demand of Rs. 4,25,775 under s. 201(1) and interest of Rs. 40,085 under s. 201(1A). same may be deleted." Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Brief facts of case are that assessee, Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. is engaged in development, promotion and conducting of horse races in Delhi. Its activities include inter alia arranging of wagering or betting in horse races. punters who have winning tickets are paid winnings after deduction of TDS. While scrutinizing TDS return, AO noted that assessee had distributed amongst winners of horse races Rs. 50,35,165 but taxable amount shown was only Rs. 36,43,743. It was noted by AO that in arriving at figure of taxable amount deduction of Rs. 2,33,922 on account of investment made and further deduction of Rs. 11,57,500 on account of rebate was claimed. AO has observed that under provisions of s. 194BB of IT Act on any payment exceeding Rs. 2,500 tax has to be deducted. He has also mentioned provisions of s. 10(3) of IT Act saying that exemption can be claimed by winner while filing his return of income and if there are more than one winnings, exemption will be limited to only Rs. 2,500 in aggregate. On basis of such observations AO proposed to compute short deduction of tax on amount of Rs. 11,57,500 claimed as rebate. assessee replied before AO that income by way of winning from horse races was exempt upto Rs. 2,500 in respect of each winnings. However, AO did not agree with explanation of assessee and has calculated short deduction of tax without allowing deduction of Rs. 2,500 from each winnings. On second claim of deduction on investment made by punter, assessee explained before AO that amount of winnings should be reduced by total amount invested by way of bets placed by punters on all horses. AO did not agree with this stand also saying that definition of income is for person who is earning it but not for person deducting tax at source. By impugned order, CIT(A) confirmed action of AO for short deduction of tax and interest thereon. Aggrieved by above order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us. It was contended by learned Authorised Representative Shri Shashi Bhushan Gupta that no tax shall be leviable in respect of winning from horse race where amount received from such winning does not exceed Rs. 2,500. According to learned Authorised Representative, AO should have computed amount of winning liable to deduction of tax at source, after deduction of Rs. 2,500 on each and every such winnings. With respect to deduction of investment made by punter while computing amount of winning from which tax is to be deducted, he contended that all investments made by punter on horse race is to be deducted from gross winning amount, and only on residual portion of amount of winning, TDS is liable to be deducted. He placed reliance on decision of Tribunal, Calcutta Bench dt. January, 2000 in case of Royal Calcutta Turf Club vs. Dy. CIT (2001) 71 TTJ (Cal) 269: (2001) 114 TAXMAN 82 (Cal)(Mag) and also on CBDT Circular No. 515, dt. 31st May, 1988 [(1988) 71 CTR (St) 12: (1988) 172 ITR 6 (St)], No. 536, dt. 6th July, 1989 [(1989) 78 CTR (St) 2: (1989) 178 ITR 62 (St)], No. 621, dt. 19th Dec., 1991 [(1992) 101 CTR (St) 1] and No. 240 dt. 17th May, 1978. On other hand, learned Departmental Representative relied on order of lower authorities and submitted that AO was justified in deducting tax at source on gross amount of prize amount as per provisions of s. 194BB of IT Act, 1961. We have considered rival contentions, carefully gone through orders of authorities below and also deliberated upon case laws cited by learned Authorised Representative and relevant circulars of CBDT cited by him. Provisions of s. 194BB provides for deduction of tax at source from income by way of winning from horse races at such rates as may be prescribed in Finance Act of relevant year. It further provides that no tax will be deducted at source where income by way of winning from any horse race to be paid to person is Rs. 2,500 or less. Circular No. 515 of CBDT dt. 30th May, 1988 also clarifies for non-deduction of tax in respect of winnings from horse races up to amount of Rs. 2,500. Only where such winnings exceed Rs. 2,500, tax is to be deducted at source at specified rates. Meaning thereby tax is to be deducted only on amount of winnings in excess of Rs. 2,500. Merely because winning amount exceeds Rs. 2,500, Department cannot ask for not allowing initial deduction of Rs. 2,500 while computing winning amount qualifying for deduction of tax at source. If winning is Rs. 2,500, no deduction of tax is to be made. If winning exceeds Rs. 2,500, tax is to be deducted on excess amount only. Issue regarding deduction of Rs. 2,500 from each winning of horse race has been elaborately dealt with by co-ordinate Bench in case of Royal Calcutta Turf Club (supra) as follows: "Moreover, expression winnings in s. 194BB has been followed by further expression from any horse race in amount exceeding Rs. 5,000. Thus, it is clear that winning must relate to particular horse race and floor limit of Rs. 5,000 should apply to that particular horse race alone. Departmental contention seemed to have arisen out of consideration of provision of s. 10(3) in accordance with which, in income-tax assessment of punter, he would be allowed basic exemption of Rs. 5,000 only once during year. Be that position with regard to assessment of punter, but so far as provisions of deduction of tax at source are concerned, they are to be guided by s. 194BB alone. There is nothing to infer that limit of Rs. 5,000 as mentioned in s. 194BB, should be referred to entire winnings of punter from horse races throughout year. Hence, gap even if any, in this regard cannot be filled up by making reference to provisions of s. 10(3). Accordingly assessee could not be held to be in default in respect of this deduction." No decision to contrary was brought to our notice by learned Departmental Representative so as to persuade us to deviate from conclusions arrived at by co-ordinate Bench. As facts and circumstances of case under consideration are in pari materia, respectfully following same, we direct AO to allow deduction of floor limit of Rs. 2,500 from each winning from horse race, claimed by assessee. However as per amendment brought in by Finance Act, 1992 w.e.f. 1st April, 1992, amount of exemption was revised from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 2,500. claim of assessee at Rs. 2,500 during asst. yr. 2001-02 under consideration, was therefore justified. second plea of assessee is that amount of investment made by punters in respect of all horse races is to be deducted from amount of winnings for arriving at figure qualifying for deduction of tax at source. Whereas contention of Department is that person responsible to deduct tax at source under s. 194BB of Act is not required to look into amount spent on purchase of ticket in horse race. Therefore, on gross amount of winning, tax is liable to be deducted. With regard to second contention of learned Authorised Representative regarding deduction of investment made by punters in horse races, we found that issue stands squarely covered by decision of Tribunal Calcutta Bench in case of Royal Calcutta Turf Club (supra), as follows: "The expression used in s. 194BB is income by way of winnings . connotation of income necessarily implies net income after deducting expenses incurred for earning gross income. There could not be any doubt about fact that cost of purchasing tickets for race which fetched prize money, must necessarily be deducted to arrive at net income. Furthermore, legislation has also used expression from any horse race and not horse races in plural. It, thus, meant that income by way of winnings from any particular horse race is required to be taken into consideration. So, one horse race is required to be taken as unit and entire money received by way of winnings from said horse race is first to be considered as gross income from that horse race. Therefrom one is required to deduct investment made by punter towards acquiring tickets, may be more than one, but pertaining to same horse race. Therefore, tax is required to be deducted only from net income arising out of horse race to punter; from any particular race after deducting investment made by punter in purchasing all tickets relating to such horse race. CBDT has also accepted said proposition in its Circular No. 240, but has directed that investment in such tickets alone which fetched winnings money should be deducted. However, if all tickets purchased by punter in particular horse race club be linked up together and if there be regular machinery with turf club authorities to take into consideration all tickets purchased in connection with one horse race, then entire amount of investment on all horses irrespective of whether horse won or lost in that race, should be treated as investment made by punter in that horse race. claim made by punter that he has purchased large number of tickets separately in respect of same horse race should not be accepted unless such claim could be verified by process existing in procedural mechanism of turf club." No decision to contrary was brought to our notice by learned Departmental Representative during course of hearing. We are well aware of judicial precedent that order passed by co-ordinate Bench should not be lightly disregarded. In taking this view, we are supported by decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd. (1990) 87 CTR (SC) 180: (1990) 186 ITR 722 (SC) wherein Hon ble Supreme Court has observed that it is true that Bench of two Members must not lightly disregard decision of another Bench of same Tribunal on identical question. rationale of this rule is need of continuity, certainty and predictability in administration of justice. As facts and circumstances of instant case are in pari materia, respectfully following proposition laid down by co-ordinate Bench, AO is directed to reduce amount of tickets purchased by punter relating to such horse race. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed, in terms indicated hereinabove. hereinabove. *** DELHI RACE CLUB (1940) LTD. v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX