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

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more