Chandigarh Bottling Co.chandigarh v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH. ITA No.861 of 2008 (O&M)Date of decision: 6.11.2009 Chandigarh Bottling Co.Chandigarh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh -----Appellants ----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the appellant.Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the revenue. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1.This appeal has been preferred by the assesseeunder section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short,‘the Act’) against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘B’, Chandigarh in ITANo.341/Chandi/2006 dated 11.1.2008, for the assessmentyear 2002-03, proposing to raise following substantialquestion of law:- “Whether on the true interpretation of section29 of the Act the soft drink bottles havingleakage, breakage and of unserviceable natureis an allowable expense? 2. The assessee is engaged in trading and distribution of soft drinks and made a claim towards loss onaccount of leakage/breakage of bottles. The said claim wasrejected by the Assessing Officer in absence of evidence tosubstantiate the same. It was also observed that theassessee was only a distributor and loss claimed wasattributable to the principal. This view has been affirmedby the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal. The Tribunalobserved:- “…It is a mere assertion by the assessee that the reasons leading upto the damage ofthe stock could not be attributed to theprincipal company and thus the loss was tobe borne by the assessee. Leave alone thesubstantiation of such plea there is noevidence to show as to in what manner thestock in question had become bad orunservable. Therefore, in the absence of anyevidence to support the claim, the assesseehas to fail in this ground. Accordingly, we upheld the action of the Income Taxauthorities in disallowing a sum ofRs.4,81,151/- claimed to be loss on accountof leakage/breakage of stock of soft drinks.On this ground, the assessee fails.” 3.We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4.Learned counsel for the appellant submits thatthe assessee was entitled to deduction under section 29 ofthe Act in respect of loss suffered as loss was incidental tobusiness. 5. We are unable to accept the submission. Even for claiming loss, the assessee has to establish that loss wasfactually suffered. All the authorities have concurrentlyrecorded a finding of fact that loss in question was neversuffered by the assessee. The said finding is not shown tobe perverse. 6.No substantial question of law arises.7.The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel)Judge November 6, 2009‘gs’ (Gurdev Singh)Judge