Section 28(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 — Business loss —Shortage of stock is a allowable loss to the assessee.[2019] 51 ITCD 60 (DEL)
Facts:  The Assessee is a Franchisee of "Madura Garments", a division of M/s Indian Rayon & Industries Limited. It has a showroom in Delhi. It entered into a franchisee agreement on 12th July, 1995 with Coats Viyella India Limited and it was appointed franchisee to sell "Allen Solly" brand of products at its showroom in Karol Bagh, New Delhi. As a franchisee, the Assessee was obliged to stock and sell the products supplied by the aforementioned company only. Under clauses 21 and 22 of the Franchisee Agreement, it was the Assessee which was accountable to the company in case of loss of goods. In November, 2000, the franchise agreement was cancelled and in the final account statement prepared by the company, a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs on account of stock shortage was debited and recovered from the assessee. In the return filed for A.Y. 2001-2002, in computing the income, the Assessee claimed shortage of Rs. 2,22,080/- which included shortage of Rs. 2 lakhs debited by the company in the final statement.
Held: Delhi High Court held that having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the plea of the Assessee ought to have been accepted in the first instance by the AO. The Assessee placed on record the agreement under which it was obliged to bear the loss for shortage of stock. The Assessee also placed on record the statement of account in terms of which it had to pay the company Rs. 2 lakhs towards shortage of stock. It is not as if the Assessee did not make an effort to ascertain the details. It was informed that on account of fire, those details could not be provided as the records had been destroyed. This was not something in the control of the Assessee. On its part it gave the full details to the AO including the FIR number reporting the loss of records due to the fire. The Court fails to appreciate how the Assessee could have done anything more to substantiate the fact that it had to pay Rs. 2 lakhs to the company towards the shortage of stock. The fact of the Assessee having actually paid the company the said amount is also not in dispute. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court answers the question of law framed in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.