9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether the loss of Rs. 20,700 on account of theft was a trade loss incidental to the assessee's business. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a reference made under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act regarding the allowability of a loss of Rs. 20,700 due to theft as a trade loss incidental to the assessee's business for the assessment year 1955-56. The assessee, a dealer in cloth with dealings in government securities, claimed the loss after being pick-pocketed at a train station after encashing a cheque for Rs. 20,790. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim, stating it was not a revenue loss incidental to the business. The Appellate Tribunal, however, held the loss was incidental to the business as the amount represented circulating capital and was necessary for the business. The High Court analyzed whether the loss was directly connected to the business or arose out of it to be considered incidental. It was emphasized that the loss must spring directly from carrying on the business and be inseparable from it. The High Court cited precedents to support its decision. Referring to a Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court, it was noted that a loss incurred by theft of money in a money-lending business was not deductible unless the thieves were employed in the business. A similar ruling by the Patna High Court was also cited where stolen money sent to a bank through an employee was not deductible. The judgment in Badridas Daga v. Commissioner of Income-tax was discussed, highlighting that losses resulting from misappropriation by an agent could be claimed as deductions as it was incidental to the business conducted through the agent. However, the Court distinguished this case from the present one, emphasizing that the loss must directly arise from the business operations. Additionally, the Court differentiated the case from Lord's Dairy Farm Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where a cashier embezzled funds, as it was ruled that the loss directly arose from the business due to the necessity of employing a cashier. Ultimately, the High Court held that the Tribunal's opinion that the loss was a trade loss was unsustainable, and the department's view was correct. The reference was answered in favor of the Revenue, and the assessee was directed to pay the costs of the department.
|
