Summarize the following court judgment. Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1954. Appeal from the judgment and order dated the 8th day of June 1951 of Calcutta High Court in Income tax Reference No. 1 of 1951. R. J. Kolah and P. K. Ghosh	 for the appellant. 552 G. N. Joshi	 Porus A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar	 for the respondent. May 8. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J. This is an appeal with certificate under section 66 A(2) of the Indian Income tax Act	 1922 from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta on a reference under section 66(1) of the Act	 whereby the High Court answered the referred question in the negative. The appellant is a timber merchant. On 5th February 1930. he obtained a loan of Rs. 1 lakh from the Bank of India on the joint security of himself and one Mamraj Rambhagat. On the same day Mamrai Rambhagat obtained a loan of Rs. 1 lakh from the Imperial Bank of India. 	 Bombay on the joint security of himself and the appellant. The appellant paid off his loan of Rs. I lakh to the Bank of India but Mamraj Rambhagat failed to make good the amount of his loan to the Imperial Bank of India	 Bombay. This sum of Rs. 1 lakh was realised by the Imperial Bank of India from the appellant with interest thereon of Rs. 626 on 24th March 1930. Mamraj Rambhagat failed in his business and his estate went into the hands of the receivers on 25th April 1930. The appellant opened a ledger account in the name of Mamraj Rambhagat and the total amount of Rs. 1	00	626	 was debited to this account. The appellant received the dividends from the receivers: Rs.31	446 on 30th October 1930	 Rs. 9	434 on 25th April 1934 and Rs. 4	716 on 17th May 1938	 aggregating to Rs. 45 596 leaving a balance of Rs. 55	030 unpaid	 which sum he wrote off as bad debt in the assessment year 1941 42 (the account year being 1997 Ramnavmi) and claimed as an allowable deduction under section 10 of the Act. The Income tax Officer disallowed the claim holding that the said loss was a capital loss	 and so did the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It was argued on behalf of the appellant before the Appellate Assis 553 tant Commissioner that it was the usual custom in Bombay to secure loans on joint security from Banks by persons carrying on business. It was stated that this manner of securing loans on joint security was preferred by the Banks and it was also in the interest of the traders as lower rate of interest was charged	 if the loan was on joint security. It was also stated that the appellant used to borrow money on joint security frequently and certain old pro notes jointly executed were submitted before the Appellate Assis tant Commissioner. Reference was made to the case of Commissioner of Income tax	 Madras vs section A. section Ramaswamy Chettiar(1)	 where it was held that it was a custom amongst Nattukottai Chettiars to stand surety for one another for borrowing from ' Banks for the purpose of lending out at higher rates of interest and that the loss incurred under the agreement of guarantee by the Chettiar firm should be allowed as a deduction. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner	 however	 distinguished the case on facts and held that even though the appellant stood surety for Mamraj Rambhagat in course of securing finance for his business of timber	 it was the loss of a sum borrowed by another	 the sum borrowed was capital in its nature and the loss suffered by the appellant on account of Mamraj Rambhagat 's failure to pay was a capital loss. On appeal taken by the appellant before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal	 the Tribunal was of the opinion that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had not expressed any opinion in his order as to whether there was such custom or not nor had he asked the appellant to establish the custom. The Tribunal in these circumstances held that the custom was accepted by the Department. The Tribunal did not see any distinction between the money lending business and timber business which were both financed by this type of borrowing and differing from the Appellate Assistant Commissioner followed the decision in Commissioner of Income tax	 Madras V. section A. section Ramaswamy Chettiar (supra).	 and came to (1) 554 the conclusion that the loss suffered by standing surety was an allowable loss and upheld the contention of the appellant. At the instance of the respondent the Tribunal stated a case to the High Court under section 66(1) of the Act and referred the following question for its decision: "Whether on the facts found the sum of Rs. 55	030 is allowable as a bad debt under the provisions of section 10(2)(xi) of the Indian Income tax Act". The said reference was heard by the High Court and in its judgment the High Court held that the Tribunal had proceeded on an erroneous assumption as to the facts of the case and the application of the money. ' Since ' no part of the loan	 which had been taken from the Imperial Bank of India by Mamraj Rambhagat on the joint security of himself and the appellant	 was applied to the appellant 's own business	 there was no question of an allowable deduction in relation to the business of the appellant. The High Court held that the Tribunal was in error even in law inasmuch as under section 10(2) (xi) it is only a trading. or business debt of the trade or business of the appellant	 which could be claimed as a loss and as the debt claimed was not in respect of the business of the appellant	 which was the business of trading in timber and not of a person carrying on the business of standing surety for other persons	 the loss suffered by the appellant was a capital loss and not a business loss at all. Regarding the decision relied upon by the Tribunal	 the High Court referred to a later decision in Commissioner of Income tax	 Madras vs section R. Subramanya Pillai(1)	 which held that the earlier decision must be read as confined to its peculiar facts and not applicable to business other than money lending business of Nattukottai Chettiars. The High Court	 therefore	 answered the referred question in the negative. Hence this appeal. The sole question for our determination in this appeal is whether the loss of Rs. 55	030 suffered by the appellant in this transaction was a capital loss or (1) 555 was a trading loss or a bad debt incurred by the appellant in the course of carrying on his business of timber. It is clear that no part of the monies borrowed on the joint security of the appellant and Mamraj Rambhagat from the Imperial Bank of India	 Bombay went to finance the timber business of the appellant	 but they were all utilised by Mamraj Rambhagat in his own business. These monies were not required to finance the timber business of the appellant	 nor was the debt due by Mamraj Rambhagat and in respect of which the account was opened by the appellant in his ledger in the name of Mamraj Rambhagat a debt due by Mamraj. Rambhagat to the timber business of the appellant. If any monies had been borrowed by the appellant in his timber business	 they would certainly have been his capital and whatever loss he incurred therein would have been his capital loss. The manner in which these monies were sought to be connected with the timber business and treated as a trading loss or bad debt of the timber business was by showing that it was the custom amongst the persons carrying business in Bombay to borrow monies from Banks on joint security and if A wanted monies for financing his business	 he could do so by asking B to join him as surety	 but he could not ask B to join him as such unless he stood surety for B in the loans which B borrowed in his turn from the Bank. A s joining B as surety was thus a consideration for B 's joining A as surety in his transaction with the Bank and	 therefore	 although no part of the monies borrowed by B came into the business of A	 A joined B as surety for the purpose of financing his own business	 which he could not do without B joining him as surety in the loan which he himself obtained from the Bank for the purpose of financing his own business. The transaction of A 's joining B as surety in the matter of B 's procuring a loan for the financing of his business was thus an essential operation of the financing of A 's business and was	 therefore	 an incident of A 's business and any loss incurred by A in the transaction could thus be treated as a trading loss in the course of carrying on of A 's 72 556 business. The loss incurred by the appellant in the transaction of his joining Mamraj Rambhagat as surety in the loan which Mamraj Rambhagat procured from the Imperial Bank of India could	 it was urged	 thus be treated as a trading loss or bad debt of the appellant 's timber business. It is necessary	 therefore	 to see what is the exact nature and scope of the custom said to have been accepted by the Department. The custom stated ' before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was that persons carrying on business in Bombay used to borrow monies on joint security from the Banks in order to facilitate getting financial assistance from the Banks and that too at lower rates of interest. A businessman could procure financial assistance from the Banks on his own	 but he would in that case have to pay a higher rate of interest. He would have to pay a lower rate of interest if he could procure as surety another businessman	 who would be approved by the Bank. This	 however	 did not mean that mutual accommodation by businessmen was necessarily an ingredient part of that custom. A could procure B	 C or D to join him as surety in order to achieve this objective	 but it did not necessarily follow that if A wanted to procure B	 C or D to thus join him as surety	 he could only do so if he in his own turn joined B	 C or D as surety in the loans	 which B	 C of D procured in their turns from the Banks for financing their respective businesses. Unless that factor was established	 the mere procurement by A of B	 C or D as surety would not be sufficient to establish the custom sought to be relied upon by the appellant so as to make the transaction of his having joined Mamraj Rambhagat as surety in the loan procured by Mamraj Rambhagat from Imperial Bank of India	 a transaction in the course of carrying on his own timber business and to make the loss in the transaction a trading loss or a bad debt of the timber business of the appellant. The old pronotes jointly executed by the appellant and others	 which were submitted before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not carry the case of the appellant far enough and stopped 557 short of proving the custom alleged by the appellant in	 its entirety. The transaction in question could not	 'therefore	 be. deemed to be one entered into by the appellant in the course of or in carrying on his timber business. Procuring finances for his timber business would no doubt be an essential operation in the course of his carrying. on his business	 but the same thing could not be predicated of this transaction of his joining Mamraj Rambhagat as surety for procuring Rs. 1 lakh from the Imperia Bank of India	 which was wholly to finance Mamraj Rambhagat 's business and not the timber business of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant laid particular emphasis on the finding by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that "it was in the course of securing finance for the business of timber that he stood surety with Mamraj Rambhagat". This finding merely records the statement of fact	 but does not go so far as to establish the custom sought to be relied upon by the appellant. The old pronotes submitted by the appellant before the	 Appellate Assistant Commissioner merely related to his own transactions	 where he had been joined by others as surety and did not establish that the others had been similarly accommodated by him in the matters of loans which they had in their turn procured from the Banks. The solitary instance of the appellant 's having joined Mamraj Rambhagat in the transaction in question could not be sufficient to establish the custom sought to be relied upon by him and we do not see any reason to enlarge the scope of the so called custom beyond what is warranted by the facts as set out in the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The custom among the Nattukottai Chettiars held proved in Commissioner of Income tax	 Madras vs section A. section Ramaswamy Chettiar (supra) was that they stood surety for one another	 when they borrowed from Banks for the purpose of lending out at higher rates of interest. It was	 moreover	 an essential element in the carrying on of a money lender 's business that 558 money	 which Was thus lent out should be procured and that could not be done unless it was borrowed on the joint security of Nattukottai Chettiars	 who stood surety for one another. Unless that type of suretyship was resorted to	 a Nattukottai Chettiar by himself could never procure any monies which he could invest in his money lending business. The following passage from the judgment at page 238 is every apposite: "It is their custom to borrow from banks for the purpose of lending out the sums so obtained at higher rates of interest. The banks require such overdrafts to be guaranteed by other Chettiars. The Chettiars stand surety for one another in these borrowings. If a Chettiar refused to accommodate another moneylender in this way	 he would not be able to obtain a guarantor for his own essential borrowings. The assessee in this case borrowed money on the guarantee of others and in turn stood surety for other Chettiars". There were thus elements of mutuality and the essential ingredient in the carrying on of the money lending business	 which were elements of the custom proved in that case	 both of which are wanting in the present case before us. It is significant to note that this case was distinguished by the learned Judges of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income tax	 Madras V. section B. Subramanya Pillai (supra)	 where it was held that that decision must be confined to its own peculiar facts and does not apply to businesses other than Nattukottai Chetty money lending business. In that case the assessee was a bookseller	 who borrowed from time to time jointly with one L a sum of Rs. 16	200 out of which the assessee took a sum of Rs. 10	450 for his business needs and L took the balance. The joint borrowing was necessitated by the business needs of both the borrowers and by the insistence of money lenders	 who required the joint security of the two persons. L failed in his business and the assessee had to repay the creditors the whole of the joint borrowing. The assessee had also to 559 spend a sum of Rs. 658 in an unsuccessful attempt to recover the amount due from L. The assessee 'Claimed to deduct the sum of Rs. 658 and also the sum of Rs. 520495 which he had to pay the creditors on account of L 's share of the joint loan; in the computation of his business profits. It was held that the assessee was not entitled to deduct these sums in the computation of his business profit either under sec tion 10 (2) (xi) or section 10 (2) (xv) or as business loss. This case furnishes the proper analogy to the present case and points to the right conclusion in regard to the claim of the appellant. The following passage from the judgment of the learned C. J. under appeal correctly sums up	 in our opinion	 the whole position: "The debt must therefore be one which can properly be called a trading debt and a debt of the trade	 the profits of which are being computed. Judged by that test	 it is difficult to see how The debt in the present case can be said to be a debt in respect of the business of the assessee. The assessee is not a person carrying on a business of standing surety for other persons. Nor is he a money lender. He is simply a timber merchant. There seems to have been some evidence before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that he had from time to time obtained finances for his business by procuring loans on the joint security of himself and some other person. But it is not established	 nor does it seem to have been alleged	 that he in his turn was in the habit of standing surety for other persons along with them for the purpose of securing loans for their use and benefit. Even if such	 had been the case	 any loss suffered by reason of having to pay a debt borrowed for the benefit of another	 would have been a capital loss to him and not a business loss at all. The result	 therefore	 is that the appeal fails and must stand dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.

The appellant who was a timber merchant obtained a loan from the Bank of India on the joint security of himself and a third party	 M. On the same day M obtained a loan from the Imperial Bank of India on the joint security of himself and the appellant. M failed in his business and the Imperial Bank of India realised the amount of the loan from the appellant who after getting some dividends from the receivers	 wrote off the balance as bad debt in the assessment year in question and claimed it as an allowable deduction under section 10 of the Indian Income tax Act	 1922 on the footing that it was in the course of securing finances for the business of timber that he stood surety with M and that it was the usual custom to secure loans on the joint security from Banks by persons carrying on business. It was not established that the appellant was in the habit of standing surety for other persons along with them for the purpose of securing loans for their use and benefit. Held	 that the debt in question could not be considered a debt in respect of the. business of the assesses who was not a person carrying on a business of standing surety for other persons and that	 in any event	 the loss suffered by reason of having to pay a debt borrowed for the benefit of another would be a capital loss and not a business loss and was not an allowable deduction under section 10(2) (xi) of the Indian Income tax Act. Commissioner of Income tax	 Madras vs section A. section Bamaswamy Chettiar ([1946] 	 distinguished. Commissioner of Income tax	 Madras vs S	 B. Subramanya Pillai ([1950] 	 approved.