1980 (5) TMI 2 - SC - Income Tax

Is a smuggler who is taxed on his income from smuggling under the Indian I.T. Act 1922 entitled to a deduction under s. 10(1) of the Act on account of the confiscation of currency notes employed in the smuggling activity - Held yes

Summary

Issues:
- Whether a smuggler is entitled to a deduction under section 10(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on account of the confiscation of currency notes employed in the smuggling activity?

Analysis:
The case involved the assessment of an individual, the respondent, who was apprehended while attempting to smuggle currency notes across the border. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) assessed the individual's income from undisclosed sources, determining a portion of the seized amount as income. The respondent claimed a deduction under section 10(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, arguing that the entire sum of confiscated currency notes should be considered a loss incurred in the smuggling business. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the claim for deduction, considering the smuggling activity as a regular business operation. The matter was then referred to the High Court to determine if the loss arising from the confiscation of currency notes was an allowable deduction under the Act.

The High Court answered in the affirmative, stating that the confiscation of currency notes was a loss directly related to the smuggling business and thus deductible. The revenue appealed this decision, arguing that the deduction should not be allowed as the smuggling activity was illegal. However, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that a loss incurred in carrying on an illegal business must be deducted before computing taxable profits. The Court referred to previous judgments to support its decision, distinguishing cases where losses arising from illegal activities were not allowed as deductions due to the nature of the business being lawful.

The Court concluded that in the case of smuggling activities, the confiscation of currency notes was a loss directly linked to the business and hence deductible under section 10(1) of the Act. Therefore, the respondent was entitled to the deduction of the full amount confiscated. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision on the matter.