1993 (1) TMI 40 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sum of Rs. 35,017.55 constitutes an admissible deduction in the computation of the business income of the assessee.

Summary:

Issue 1: Admissibility of Deduction of Rs. 35,017.55

The assessee, a company, claimed a deduction of Rs. 35,017.55 in its business income for the assessment year 1973-74, arguing that the loss was due to a forged letter leading to the withdrawal of the amount from its current account. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim on the grounds that the loss had no relation to the day-to-day business, was not a debt incurred in the course of business, and was not incidental to the business. This rejection was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the loss was not incurred in the course of business and hence could not be allowed as a business loss. The assessee sought a reference u/s 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, leading to the present case.

Arguments by Assessee:

The assessee's counsel argued that the loss was a business loss deductible u/s 28(i) of the Act, citing Supreme Court decisions in CIT v. Nainital Bank Ltd. [1965] 55 ITR 707 and Ramchandar Shivnarayan v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 263, and decisions of the Bombay High Court in Sassoon J. David and Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 50 and CIT v. P. V. Gore and Co. [1983] 143 ITR 922.

Arguments by Revenue:

The Revenue's counsel argued that the loss had no connection with the business, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Badridas Daga v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 10.

Court's Analysis:

The court examined the principles laid down in various Supreme Court decisions, emphasizing that losses incidental to business operations are deductible. The court noted that the loss in question was due to embezzlement from the company's bank account, which was maintained for business purposes. The court found it difficult to distinguish between embezzlement from a bank account and theft from business premises, concluding that the loss was incidental to the business.

Conclusion:

The court held that the loss of Rs. 35,017.55 was incidental to the business and therefore deductible u/s 28(i) of the Act. The question was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs was made.