Trading loss deduction depends on actual loss in the accounting year and asset value at the start of that year.

An appeal by the Income Tax Officer under Section 33(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was maintainable because the challenge raised a question of law going to the validity of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order, and prior acceptance of the deduction in principle did not bar the appeal. The assessee firm could not deduct the claimed amount as a trading loss because it was a separate entity from the original lender, the relevant half-share in the mortgage had no real value at the start of the accounting year, and no loss was actually incurred by the assessee during that year. The reference was answered against the assessee on both issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Income Tax Officer was entitled to prefer an appeal under Section 33(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 on the ground that no part of the bad debt was an admissible deduction. (ii) Whether the assessee firm was entitled in law to deduct the sum of $2,524 as a trading loss from its business income.

Issue (i): Whether the Income Tax Officer was entitled to prefer an appeal under Section 33(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 on the ground that no part of the bad debt was an admissible deduction.

Analysis: The objection that the contention was raised late and that the officer had accepted the deduction in principle did not bar the appeal. The appeal was taken on the Commissioner's instructions, the assessee had full notice, and the question raised was one of law going to the validity of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order.

Conclusion: The appeal was maintainable and the objection to it failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee firm was entitled in law to deduct the sum of $2,524 as a trading loss from its business income.

Analysis: The assessee firm was a different entity from the earlier firm that had originally advanced the money. The relevant enquiry was the real value of the half-share in the mortgage at the commencement of the accounting year. On the facts, that asset had no value on 13 April 1940, and subsequent events confirmed that it was nil. Since no loss was actually sustained by the assessee firm during the year of account in respect of that asset, the amount could not be deducted as a trading loss.

Conclusion: The assessee firm was not entitled to deduct $2,524.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee, and the Revenue succeeded on both the maintainability and deduction questions.

Ratio Decidendi: A deduction as a trading loss is allowable only if the loss is actually incurred by the assessee during the relevant accounting year, and the real value of the asset at the start of that year controls the enquiry.

---