9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the loss of Rs. 9,300 arose in the ordinary course of, and was incidental to, the assessee's business. 2. Whether the loss of Rs. 9,300 was a trading loss under section 10(1) of the Income-tax Act and allowable in computing the business income. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the loss of Rs. 9,300 arose in the ordinary course of, and was incidental to, the assessee's business: The assessee, a registered firm with its head-office in Beri, Rohtak district, and branches in various places including Calcutta, was engaged in dealing with foodgrains and agricultural products on a commission basis. During the assessment year 1956-57, an employee of the Calcutta branch was sent to deposit Rs. 9,300 in the Punjab National Bank, Bara Bazar Branch, Calcutta. The money was stolen by a thief on the bank premises, and despite lodging a police report, the culprit could not be traced. The amount was written off in the assessee's books as stolen, and the assessee claimed it as a trade loss in their income-tax return. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim, stating that the assessee failed to substantiate that the amount was laid out for business purposes, treating it as a capital loss. This decision was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who reasoned that the loss of cash, not being the stock-in-trade of the assessee's business, could not be considered a revenue loss. The Appellate Tribunal also confirmed this disallowance, citing that sending money to a bank was not a transaction connected with or incidental to the business operations of the assessee. 2. Whether the loss of Rs. 9,300 was a trading loss under section 10(1) of the Income-tax Act and allowable in computing the business income: The Tribunal referred to the case of Mulchand Hiralal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where it was held that money stolen by an outsider while being sent to a bank was not a business loss. The Tribunal distinguished this case from Lord's Dairy Farm Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where defalcation by an employee was considered a business loss, emphasizing that the theft in the present case was by an outsider and not incidental to the business operations. The High Court examined whether the loss was incidental to the business. The Supreme Court's observations in Badridas Daga v. Commissioner of Income-tax were considered, where it was held that losses incidental to the employment of agents could be deducted under section 10(1). However, it was emphasized that the loss must spring directly from the carrying on of the business and be incidental to it, not merely connected with the business. The Court also referred to the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chukka Narayana, where a loss by theft at a railway station was not considered incidental to the business. The High Court concluded that the assessee failed to prove that the stolen sum was connected with or incidental to the business. The loss was not shown to be inseparable from the business operations, and thus, the claim for deduction could not be allowed. Judgment: The High Court answered the referred question in the negative, stating that the loss of Rs. 9,300 did not arise in the ordinary course of, and was not incidental to, the assessee's business. The Commissioner of Income-tax was entitled to Rs. 100 as costs.
|
