Skip to main content

Unascertained Business Loss Cannot Be Allowed As Deduction

Citation : Avijit Dewanjee vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, ITA No.3249/Bang/2018

Date of Judgment/Order : 23.02.2022

Court/Tribunal : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench : Bangalore

Corum: Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member And Smt. Beena Pillai, Judicial Member

Background

In this case, the assessee claimed a sum of Rs.2,46,36,701 as loss on account of embezzlement of cash which was done by one of the employees of the assessee. The contention of the Appellant was that the cashier while working in the assessee’s firm embezzled cash on day to day basis which came to be known in the assessment year under consideration against which assessee lodged a FIR and also charge sheet is filed and the case is pending before the Court. the loss by embezzlement by employee should be treated as incidental to the business and this loss should be allowed as deduction in the year in which it is discovered. 

Judgment

Even if the cash is kept for business purposes, the assessee should see the reasonable process of recovery of amount of embezzlement. Unless recovery is impossible, it could not be stated that it is a business loss in a commercial sense.

In the present case, till the point of time the assessee entertained the hope of recovering the loss, the said amount cannot be allowed as a deduction in this assessment year under consideration, as the assessee has not ascertained the loss in the books of account and it is shown as sundry debtors suspense account without charging it to the P&L account. At this stage, it is not possible to hold that it is ascertained liability to allow the loss as a deduction.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more