9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issue involves whether the Tribunal was correct in confirming the order directing the Income-tax Officer to allow deduction of embezzled amount as trading loss for the assessment year 1985-86, despite the embezzler not being an employee of the assessee. Summary: The assessee claimed deduction for embezzlement by Kishore Hemani, who collected sale proceeds but did not remit them to the assessee. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim due to lack of evidence of authorization. However, the appellate authority allowed the claim citing reasons such as a police inspector's letter, encashment through fictitious firms, and treating the embezzled amount as trading loss for 1985-86. The Tribunal upheld this view based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Associated Banking Corporation of India Limited v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 1. The High Court analyzed the deduction claim in light of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that while there is no specific provision for embezzlement-related trading losses, section 37 allows for business-related expenditures with a nexus to business operations. Citing precedents like Badridas Daga v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 10 and CIT v. Nainital Bank Limited [1965] 55 ITR 707, the Court affirmed that losses incidental to business operations should be deductible. Relying on these principles, the Court concluded that the Tribunal rightly allowed the deduction due to the direct connection between the embezzlement and the assessee's business operations. In conclusion, the Court answered the question against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee, disposing of the reference accordingly.
|
