# INDORE MALWA UNITED MILLS LTD., INDORE v. STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1965] 1 S.C.R. 559
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1964-10-01
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1013 of 1963
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/indore-malwa-united-mills-ltd-indore-v-state-of-madhya-bharat-and-others-3344
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
INDORE MALWA UNITED MILLS LTD., INDORE
v.
STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT AND OTHERS
October 1, 1964
(K. SUBBA RAo, 1. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIKRI, 11.)
55~
·Indore Industrial Tax Rules, 1927, s. 3-Large amounts borrowed by
Managing Agents from outsiders on behalf of the company and invested
with themselves-Managing Agents authorised by c</mpany resolution to
do so--Debt not paid back by Managing Agems claimed as bad debt by
company-Whether allowable as trade loss-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922,
s. 10(2).
The appellant company which carried on the business of manufacturing
textiles was allowed by its Memorandum of Association to borrow money
for the purpose of its business and to invest it inter alia in loans to others ..
Its Board of Directors passed a resolution to the effect that the company
would invest its surplus funds in current account with the Managing Agents
on interest. The Managing Agents borrowed large sums from outsiders,
entered thl' borrowings in the books of the company and invested large
sum with themselves in current account.
Before the Annual General
Meeting they would bring back the money into the company's accounts to
satisfy the General Body that they had paid off their debts, and afterwards
would again withdraw large sums for their own purposes. In 1933 the
Managing Agents' company went into liquidation and a large debt was
due from them to the company. In 1941 the debt having been found to
be irrecoverable, the appellant company claimed it as a bad debt and
trading loss for the purpose of computing its income under the Indore
Industrial Tax Rules, 1927, the provisions of which, in 'this regard, were
similar to those of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessing authority
did not allow the claim, nor did the Appellate Authority. The High Court
also held that the losses incurred by the company were really dehors the
business of the company. The company thereupon appealed to the Supreme
Court.
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the employment of the
Managing Agents was incidental to the carrying on of the appellant's business,· that, as the Managing Agents had the power to borrow funds for the
appellant company and invest the surplus in loans to themselves, the loss
caused by such investment was also incidental to the carrying on the appel·
!ant's business, and therefore the said loss was deductible in arri\ing at the
trading profits of the company.
HELD : The appeal must be allowed.
The Man~ging Agents had borrowed the money from outsiders and
invested it with themselves in accordance with the company's resolution.
The money borrowed from outsiders became part of the funds of the
company, and the creditors could have sued the company for it. Similarly
the company could have sued the Managing Agents for the sums invested
with them. Both the borrowing by the company and the investment with
the Managing Agents created legal obligations. Appropriate entries were
made in the company's accounts in accordance with commercial pracfice.
The amounts invested with the Mana(ling A:gents were entered as debts
which became bad debts on becoming irrecoverable. In the circumstances
the loss arising from the bad debts was incidental to the appellant's business
560
SUPREME
COCRT
REPORTS
[ 1965] I S.C.R.
and deductible in computing the profits of the appellant company for the
A
assessment year in question. (563 F-H; 564 B-EJ.
Badridas Daga v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1959] S.C.R. 690 and
Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. v. Mis. Nainllal Bank Ltd., [1965]
I S.C.R. 340.

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
INDORE MALWA UNITED MILLS LTD., INDORE
v.
STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT AND OTHERS
October 1, 1964
(K. SUBBA RAo, 1. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIKRI, 11.)
55~
·Indore Industrial Tax Rules, 1927, s. 3-Large amounts borrowed by
Managing Agents from outsiders on behalf of the company and invested
with themselves-Managing Agents authorised by c</mpany resolution to
do so--Debt not paid back by Managing Agems claimed as bad debt by
company-Whether allowable as trade loss-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922,
s. 10(2).
The appellant company which carried on the business of manufacturing
textiles was allowed by its Memorandum of Association to borrow money
for the purpose of its business and to invest it inter alia in loans to others ..
Its Board of Directors passed a resolution to the effect that the company
would invest its surplus funds in current account with the Managing Agents
on interest. The Managing Agents borrowed large sums from outsiders,
entered thl' borrowings in the books of the company and invested large
sum with themselves in current account.
Before the Annual General
Meeting they would bring back the money into the company's accounts to
satisfy the General Body that they had paid off their debts, and afterwards
would again withdraw large sums for their own purposes. In 1933 the
Managing Agents' company went into liquidation and a large debt was
due from them to the company. In 1941 the debt having been found to
be irrecoverable, the appellant company claimed it as a bad debt and
trading loss for the purpose of computing its income under the Indore
Industrial Tax Rules, 1927, the provisions of which, in 'this regard, were
similar to those of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessing authority
did not allow the claim, nor did the Appellate Authority. The High Court
also held that the losses incurred by the company were really dehors the
business of the company. The company thereupon appealed to the Supreme
Court.
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the employment of the
Managing Agents was incidental to the carrying on of the appellant's business,· that, as the Managing Agents had the power to borrow funds for the
appellant company and invest the surplus in loans to themselves, the loss
caused by such investment was also incidental to the carrying on the appel·
!ant's business, and therefore the said loss was deductible in arri\ing at the
trading profits of the company.
HELD : The appeal must be allowed.
The Man~ging Agents had borrowed the money from outsiders and
invested it with themselves in accordance with the company's resolution.
The money borrowed from outsiders became part of the funds of the
company, and the creditors could have sued the company for it. Similarly
the company could have sued the Managing Agents for the sums invested
with them. Both the borrowing by the company and the investment with
the Managing Agents created legal obligations. Appropriate entries were
made in the company's accounts in accordance with commercial pracfice.
The amounts invested with the Mana(ling A:gents were entered as debts
which became bad debts on becoming irrecoverable. In the circumstances
the loss arising from the bad debts was incidental to the appellant's business
560
SUPREME
COCRT
REPORTS
[ 1965] I S.C.R.
and deductible in computing the profits of the appellant company for the
A
assessment year in question. (563 F-H; 564 B-EJ.
Badridas Daga v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1959] S.C.R. 690 and
Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. v. Mis. Nainllal Bank Ltd., [1965]
I S.C.R. 340.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal No. 1013
of 1963.
B
Appeal from the judgment dated November 9, 1960, of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.
40 of 1955.
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and Rameshwar Nath, for the appel1~.
c
B. Sen, Balwan Singh Johar and /. N. Shroff, for the respondents.
The J udgmcnt of the Court was delivered by
Subba Rao J.
This appeal by certificate preferred against
D
the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Indore Bench,
raises the question whether an item of Rs. 42,63,090-14-7 should
have been allowed as a trading loss in computing the profits of
the appellant-company under s. 3 of the Indore Industrial Tax
Rules, 1927.
E
The facts may be briefly stated. The appellant, Indore Malwa
United Mills Ltd., is a public limited company incorporated and
registered under the Indore Companies Act, 1914.
Since the
incorporation it has been carrying on business of manufacturing
cloth.
Under the Memorandum of Association of the said company, for the purpose of the textile business it was authorized to
F
raise or borrow money from time to time and t<,> invest its funds,
inter alia, in Joans to others.
For the purpose of carrying on
the business, the appellant-company originally appointed M/s.
Karimbhai Ibrahim & Co. Ltd.
as its Managing Agents.
On
June 8, 1926, the Board of Directors of the appellant-company
passed a resolution to the following effect:
"Resolved that Surplus Fund of the company be
invested with the agents in current account with the
company at the same rate of interest viz .. 6% "
On November 28, 1929. the appellant-company entered into an
:1grcement with M/s.
Karimbbai
Ibrahim & Sons Ltd. whereunder they were appointed as the Managing Agents of the appellant-company in place of M/s. Karimbhai Ibrahim & Co. Ltd.
G
H
INDORE MALWA MILLS v. STATE (Subba Rao J.)
561
A On July 19, 1932, the Board of Directors reaffirmed the resolution of June 8, 1926. Pursuant to the power conferred on the
Managing Agents under the said agency agreement and the said
resolution, Karimbhai Ibrahim & Sons Ltd. borrowed large sums
of money from outsiders, entered them in the appellant-company's
accounts and invested large, sums with themselves "in current
B
account with the company" in terms of the said resolution and
utilized the same for their own purposes.
Before the Annual
General Body Meeting they use.d to bring large amounts into the
accounts of the company and show that they had paid off their
debts.
After satisfying the General Body they
would
again
c withdraw
large sums for their purposes.
The General Body
was also aware of the loans and indeed it approved the said
transactions. In the year 1933 the Managing Agency company
went into liquidation. For the assessment year 1941, the appellant-company submitted its return of income and claimed thereunder a deduction, among other items, a sum of Rs. 49,13,316
D
under the head of bad debt and trading loss written off in the
profits and loss account of the appellant-company-we are only
concerned in this appeal with this item and, therefore, jt is not
necessary to notice any other particulars of the assessment. The
Assessing Authority allowed only Rs. 6,41,913-2-0 as bad debt
and disallowed the amount due from Karimbhai Ibrahim & Sons
E Ltd. on the ground that tho said borrowings were not made for
the purpose of the business of the company.
On appeal the
Appellate Authority also took the same view.
On further appeal,
the High Court confirmed the finding of the Appellate Authority
on the ground that the losses incurred by the company were
F
G
H
really dehors the business of the company, though they might
involve fraudulent conduct of the Managing Agents.
Hence the
.present appeal.
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the employment of the Managing Agents
was incidental to the carrying on of the appellant's busines~. that,
as the Managing Agents had the power to borrow funds for the
appellant-company and invest the surplus in loans to themselves
the loss caused by such investment was also incidental to the
Cllrrying on of the appellant's business and, therefore, the said
Joss was deductible in arriving at the trading profits of the appellant-company.
Mr. Sen, learned counsel for the respondents, raised before
us two contentions, namely, ( l) the assessment in question was
made under the Indore Industrial Tax Rules, 1927, that under
562
SUPREME
COURT
REPORTS
[1965] I S.C.R.
the said Rules tax was payable only in respect of the profits or
gains of any cotton mill industry and that profits or loss pertaining to the money-lending activity of the appellant-rompany could
not possibly be subject to tax or deduction under the said Rules;
and ( 2) the debt due by the Managing Agents was not a trading
debt inasmuch as the Managing Agents borrowed moneys not
nece.~sary for the business of the appellant-company and lent to
themselves the said amount and, therefore, it was a loss incurred
by the appellant dehors the business of the company.
The first question raised by Mr. Sen is based upon the distinction between the Indore Industrial Tax Rules and the corresponding provisions of the Indian Incomt)-tax Act.
It is said
that the Indore Industrial Tax Rules arc only concerned with
the cotton mill industry and the tax payable thereunder is in
respect of the said industry, while under the Incomc·tax Act the
tax is payable in respect of the income of the business of the assessee.
But a perusal of the proceedings during all the stages docs not
disclose that any such argument was advanced at any time.
Assuming thac the contention was correct, if it had been raised
before, the assessee might have been in a position to establish
by relevant evidence that the particular amount borrowed by the
Managing Agents was from and out of the amounts borrowed
for the purpose of the said industry. We cannot allow a question
which at its best is a mixed question of fact and law to be raised
for the first time before us.
We do not propose to express our
opinion on the same one way or other.
We shall proceed with
the appeal on the basis that for the purpose of deducting trading
losses in computing trading profits there is no difference between
the Income-tax Act and the relevant Indore Industrial Tax Rules.
The only question, therefore, is whether the loss dairned in
the present case was a trading loss which is deductible in computing the profits of the company.
The relevant principle of law
has been laid down by this Court in Badri:las Daga v. Commis-
.<ioner of Income-tax(').
There. after considering the relevant
decisions on the subject, this Court laid down the following test :
"The rcsu1t is that when a claim is made for a deduction for which
there is no
specific provision in
s. I 0 ( 2). whether it is admissible or not will depend
on whether, having regard
to accepted
commercial
practice and trading principles. it can be said to arise
out of the carrying on of the business and to be incidental .
(!) (1959] S.C.R. 690, 695.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
•
A
B
INDORE MALWA MILLS v. STATE (Subba Rao !.)
563
to it. If that is established, then the deduction must
be allowed, ~rovided of course there is no prohibition
against it, express or implied, in the Act."
Where an agent employed by the appellant for the purpose of
carrying on his business in exercise of the powers conferred on
him operated on the bank accounts, wHhdrew moneys from it
and used them for discharging his personal debts, this Court in
the said decision found no difficulty in holding that the amount
misappropriated and found irrecoverable was an allowable deduction under the Income-tax Act.
The only difference between
that case and the present one is that the Agent misappropriated
c the amount in that case, whereas in the present case the Managing
Agents in exercise of the powers conferred by the appellant
borrowed the moneys, but failed to return the same. If embezzlement of moneys entrusted to an agent is incidental to a
business, by the same token moneys legally utilized by the agent
must more appropriately be incidental to the business. In a
D recent decision in The Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. v. Mis.
Nainital Bank Ltd.(') this Court held that an amount lost to
the bank by dacoity was a loss incidental
to the business of
banking.
There, in the course of the business large amounts
were kept in the bank premises, and this Comt held that the
risk of loss by dacoity was incidental to a b;inking business. If
E
that be so, the fact that the Managing Agents brought into the
company's til! larger amounts than the company's business demanded at a particular point of time would not make the borrowings or the lending of money to themselves any the less incidental
to the sanctioned business operations.
F
The question is not whether the Managing Agents committed
a fraud on the company, but whether the amounts borrowed
were the funds of the company. If the creditors had filed a mit
against the company, could it have resisted the suit on the ground
that the Managing Agents had no power to borrow the amounts
for the reason that at the time they borrowed, the amounts were
G in excess of the requirements of the business ? Decidedly not.
There would not have been any defence to such a suit.
After
the borrowing the money became the company's money.
That
apart, there was no question of fraud in this case, for the profit
and loss account and the balancelsheet p)aced before the General
Body Meeting of the Company every year brought to its notice
H
the total amount the company borrowed through the Managing
Agents and the General Body approved of it.
The only fraud,
(I} [1965] I S.C.R. 340.
564
SUPREME
COURT
REPORTS
(1965] I S.C.R.
if any, consisted in the practice followed by the Managing Agents
A
in bringing into the accounts of the company the entire amount
lent to them in order to satisfy the shareholders that nothing
was going wrong.
The next step is the borrowing of money by the Managing
Agents from the company.
Under the memorandum of associa8
tion as well as under the express power conferred by the said
resolution, the company, through the Managing Agents, could
invest its funds by way of loans. If there was no mishap the
Managing Agents would have paid the entire amount and if they
did not, the company could have recovered the entire amount
f: om them.
The result, therefore, was that both the borrowc
ing by the Managing Agents on behalf of the company from
third parties and the lending to themselves created legal obligations.
They were obligations created in the course of the business.
The money lent would be a debit item in the accounts
of the company in accordance with the
accepted
commercial
practice and if the amount was realized it would be a credit item.
D
Both would be proper items of accounts for ascertaining the
profit and loss of the company. If the debt became irrecover--
able, it would be a bad debt.
We, therefore, find no difficulty in holding that the said debt
which had become irrecoverable was a trading loss deductible in
E
computing the profit of the appellant-company in the assessment
year.
It was a loss incidental to the appenant's business and is
certainly sanctioned by commercial practice and trading principles.
We, therefore, hold that the High Court went wrong
in holding that the said amount represented loss incurred by the
appellant dehors its business.
F
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellant will have
ii' costs here and in the High Court.
Appeal al/owe•.