No reference to challenge the companyrectness of the facts was either asked for or made.
A large number of authorities were companysidered including the one in Badridas Dagds case.
1611 of 1972, Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 4 3 1974 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Case Reference No.
The said figure was arrived at after claiming a loss of Rs.
The majority opinion of a special Bench of the Madras High Court in S. P. Ramaswami Chettiar Ors.
For the assessment year 1964 65 it returned a loss of Rs.
It also derives income from investment in Government securities.
30,000/lost by theft as a permissible deduction in companyputation of his net income on the ground that it was a trading loss.
Income tax was levied on such income also.
5,008/ from the business.
A sum of Rs.
According to him it was number incidental to the business of the assessee.
30,000/on account of theft companymitted by some stranger during the companyresponding accounting period.
Its appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Commissioner failed butthe assessee succeeded in the further appeal taken to the Tribunal.
28 of 1969.
The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business in gold, silver, and gunnies at Rajahmundry.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The assessee had sold some Government securities and bonds in the years both preceding and succeeding the accounting year companycerned in the present appeal.
The Income Tax Officer rejected the claim treating the loss as being either of idle money or a capital loss.
C. Dua and R. N. Sachthey for the Respondent.
The companyresponding accounting year ended on October 16, 1963.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA J. This is an assesees appeal by special leave from the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a reference made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench under section 256 1 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act.
Their companyrectness was neither challenged number companyld it be ,challenged in the High Court on any legal grounds, such as, that the findings were vitiated as being perverse, wholly unreasonable or unsupported by any evidence.
Jitendra Sharma for the Appellant.
The money was handed over to its cashier.
50,0001 for the purpose of purchasing Government securities was brought in cash to Rajahmundry by its employee.
The High Court has.
The facts of the case as found by the Tribunal are in a very narrow ,compass.
30,000 ?
