JUDGMENT I. MAHANTY, J. — The present appeal has been filed by the appellant seeking to challenge the order dated 5.8.2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in I.T.A. No.341 (CTK) of 2003 along with I.T.A. No.359 and 472 (CTK) of 2003 and C.O. No.37 (CTK) of 2003 pertaining to the assessment year 2001-2002. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the fact in this case in brief is that the Star Plus TV channel started a programme known as “Koun Banega Crorepati” in which the appellant participated in the programme which was recorded on 29.9.2000 and telecasted by the television channel on 30th September 2000. Since the appellant answered the questions correctly, she was awarded a sum of Rs.25 lakhs. This payment was made to the appellant by a post dated cheque dated 5.11.2000. The appellant was served with a notice dated 16.1.2001 by the Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, Cuttack-Respondent No.1 whereby, she was called upon to pay income tax of Rs.11 lakhs and subsequently, was reduced to Rs.10.39 lakhs. 3. Pursuant to the notice from Respondent No.1, the appel¬lant through her representation appeared before the Respondent No.1 and contended that no tax was payable by her under the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the respondent No.1 insisted that the amount received by her, was taxable under Section 115 BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that appropriate tax was to be paid. It is further averred that notwithstanding the specific stand of the appellant that her receipt cannot brought into the tax net, Respondent No.1 prevailed upon her to pay the advance tax and ultimately, the appellant was compelled to pay a sum of Rs.7,55,500/- as advised by the Asst. Commissioner as “advance tax”. From the averments in the appeal memo, it appears that various time were taken by the appellant initially disclosing the receipts as “income from other sources” and subsequently, filed her revised return and claiming receipts as “income from business and profession”. The appellant alleges that these both returns were filed on the basis of erroneous advice. However, subsequent¬ly, a refund voucher for Rs.2,32,740/- was made out under Sec¬tion 143(1) of the I.T. Act but the said refund has not been issued to the appellant. The appellant alleges that these both returns were filed on the basis of erroneous advice. However, subsequent¬ly, a refund voucher for Rs.2,32,740/- was made out under Sec¬tion 143(1) of the I.T. Act but the said refund has not been issued to the appellant. It appears that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act and vide his order dated 27.1.2003 computed the income by resorting to Section 115 BB of the Income Tax Act. It is contended by the appellant that the Assessing Officer erred in law in applying the said provision as the said provision has no application in so far as the facts and circumstances of the present case is concerned. Section 115 BB is quoted hereinbe¬low : “115BB. Tax on winnings from lotteries, crossword puzzles, races including horse races, card games and other games of any sort or gambling or betting of any form or nature whatsoever. Where the total income of an assessee includes any income by way of winnings from any lottery or crossword puzzle or race including horse race (not being income from the activity of owning and maintaining race horses) or card game and other game of any sort or from gambling or betting of any form or nature whatsoever, the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on income by way of winnings from such lottery or crossword puzzle or race including horse race or card game and other game of any sort or from gam¬bling or betting of any form or nature whatsoever, at the rate of (thirty) per cent; and (ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (i). Explanation :- For the purposes of this section, “horse race” shall have the same meaning as in Section 74A.” 4. Explanation :- For the purposes of this section, “horse race” shall have the same meaning as in Section 74A.” 4. It appears that the appellant being aggrieved by the order of assessment, filed an appeal under Section 246 of the I.T. Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Cuttack (Respondent No.2) and the said appeal, i.e. I.T. Appeal No.0262/2002-03 was filed, inter alia, on the ground that the assessing officer was not justified in applying the provisions of Section 115 BB of the Act and that the effect of amendment to Section 2(24)(ix) where an explanation was added, vide Explana¬tion-ii by the Finance Act, 2001, came into effect only on 1.4.2002 for the first time, bringing the receipts from T.V. shows within the definition of income. It is further contended that the appellant having receipt the payment on 5.11.2000, the provision of Section 115 BB and the Explanation-ii of Section 2(24)(ix) came into effect only by way of promulgation of the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1.4.2002 and consequently, did not have retrospective effect. It further appears that the first appeal was disposed of by Respondent No.2 vide order dated 30.4.2003 and while accepting the stand of the appellant with regard to the amendment of Sec¬tion 2(24)(ix) and introduction of Explanation-ii as well as the inapplicability of Section 115 BB, the first appellate au¬thority came to hold that the receipt by the appellant under the head “income from other sources”. Therefore, the first appellate authority-Respondent No.2 directed the Assessing Officer-Respondent No.1 to determine the extent of allowability of ex¬penses incurred for determining of the income of the appellant after affording an opportunity of hearing. Being aggrieved by the order of Respondent No.2 (1st appel¬late authority), the appellant filed second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (Respondent No.3) and the same came to be registered as ITA No.341 (CTK) of 2003. In the said appeal, the appellant questioned the finding of the Respondent No.2 holding that the receipt of the appellant was taxable under the heading “income from other sources” as well as challenged the order of remand for fresh determination of the quantum of income. In the said appeal, the appellant questioned the finding of the Respondent No.2 holding that the receipt of the appellant was taxable under the heading “income from other sources” as well as challenged the order of remand for fresh determination of the quantum of income. It appears that while Income Tax Department also filed two appeals before the ITAT under Section 154 and the same were numbered as ITA Nos.359 and 472 (CTK) of 2003 and also on the other hand filed cross-objection, numbered as CO No.37 (CTK) of 2003, the Revenue questioned the determination of the Respondent No.2 (1st appellate authority) regarding the applica¬bility of Section 115 BB and Section 2(24)(ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal heard the appellant’s appeal, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the cross-objection of the appellant and disposed of the same analogously through a common order dated 5.8.2004. The appel¬lant’s appeal was dismissed and the Revenue’s appeal was allowed. It is against this order dated 5.8.2004 in which the present appeal has been filed although the various questions were arising in this appeal. A further fact which requires to be noted is that during the pendency of this appeal before the High Court, the appellant had also filed an application under Section 154 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal had recalled the impugned order dated 5.8.2004 and directed fresh hearing. The Revenue being aggrieved by the order passed by the Income Tax Act under Section 154, had sought to challenge the same on the question of jurisdiction by way of filing the writ petition in W.P.(C) No.3226 of 2008 before this Court, which came to be allowed by judgment and order dated 3.2.2009 and, therefore, the order of the Tribunal dated 20.7.2007 passed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act was quashed. 5. In course of hearing the aforesaid writ application, the present appellant informed the Court if the pendency of her appeal before this Court and hence, the present appeal was directed to be listed for hearing. 5. In course of hearing the aforesaid writ application, the present appellant informed the Court if the pendency of her appeal before this Court and hence, the present appeal was directed to be listed for hearing. In course of hearing the present appeal, although various questions of law was pleaded, the challenge was confined to question No.A. which is quoted herein below : “(A) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the receipt of the Appellant on 5.11.2000 can be said to be income and exigible to tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the A/Y 2001-2002, especially when the amendment to Sec.2(24)(ix) was brought into effect from 1.4.2002 ?” Section 2(24)(ix) was inserted in the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Finance Act, 1972 w.e.f. 1.4.1972 which is quoted herein below : “2(24)(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 whatsoev¬er;” The explanation to the aforesaid provision was introduced by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1.4.2002 which was quoted herein below: “Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-clause,- (i) “lottery” includes winnings, from prizes awarded to any person by draw of lots or by chance or in any other manner what¬soever, under any scheme or arrangement by whatever name called; (ii) card game and other game of any sort includes any game show, an entertainment programme on television or electronic mode, in which people compete to win prizes or any other similar game;” 6. In the impugned order, the Tribunal while dealing with the revenue’s appeal/contentions regarding the applicability of Section 115 BB and whether the receipt by the appellant was taxable thereunder or not and the receipt by the appellant taxa¬ble under the said provision or not, came to hold that the defi¬nition of income under Section 2(24)(ix) was amended since the definition was not exhaustive and also to include prizes won in entertainment programmes on television and decided the issue in favour of the Revenue. 7. On a reading of Section 2(24)(ix) and the Explanation thereto which come into effect from 1.4.2002 and Section 115 BB, a conjoint reading of the aforesaid two provisions is required to be made. 7. On a reading of Section 2(24)(ix) and the Explanation thereto which come into effect from 1.4.2002 and Section 115 BB, a conjoint reading of the aforesaid two provisions is required to be made. The Tribunal failed to taken into account the fact that Section 2(24)(ix) was introduced and the Explanation thereto was introduced w.e.f. 1.4.2002 and would have prospective effect, therefore, the I.T.A.T. having failed to take into account the aforesaid fact, renders the order of the Tribunal susceptible to challenge. 8. Accordingly, we quash the order of Tribunal dated 5.8.2004 and remand all the matters i.e., the appellant’s appeal, department’s appeal as well as appellant’s cross-objection back to the Tribunal to reconsider afresh keeping in view the date of amendment to the relevant statute and in particular, the date from which the amendments to statute came into operation. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the appeal is allowed. Since the matter has been long delayed, we further direct the Tribunal to deal with the matter and dispose of the same at an early date, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Appeal allowed.