1937 (11) TMI 5

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wance in respect of two separate items. The first item is composed of two separate sums respectively ₹ 313 and ₹ 700, and the assessee claims to be entitled to deduct the amount of these two items from his assessment in the following circumstances. In the accounting year 1931-32 it would appear that in making up his accounts he confused the accounts in respect of the shop business with the accounts in respect of the commission business in the matter of two items. Certain goods had been sent to him to be sold on commission but the amounts in respect of two of the parcels of goods sent to him for sale on commission were as a matter of fact entered as having been made in respect of the shop business, and he put down in the accounts....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nting year 1931-32, show to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that in respect of that year he had made a mistake in making up his accounts and get a refund of the income tax in respect of the assessment for 1932-33. The Commissioner was right in our opinion in his finding, and to the question "whether the disallowance of the claim for deductions of two sums, namely, ₹ 313 and ₹ 700 is legal" I would answer it, in agreement with the Commissioner, in the affirmative. The second item in respect of which the assessee claims a deduction from the amount upon which he is to be assessed is in respect of some money that appears to have been stolen from him. In the accounting year 1931-32 he was sending some of his money to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng to the Act itself, and Sec. 10 sets forth a list of permissible allowances. They are specified in sub-sec. (2). Paragraphs (i) to ( vii) of that sub-section admittedly do not apply and this particular loss cannot be classified under any of the items in that particular sub-section. Paragraph (ix) is as follows: "any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure) incurred solely for the purpose of earning such profits or gains". Now, I have failed altogether to understand how a theft can be considered as expenditure, and in any case the reference to the "expenditure incurred solely for the purpose of" must refer to the mind of the person who is claiming allowance. It cannot refer to the mind of the thief. ....