Beasley, C.J.

1. The facts in this case have been sufficiently set out in the answers to the question referred to us of my learned brothers Anantakrishna Ayyer and Curgenven, JJ., which I have had the advantage of seeing and I therefore do not propose to state them. Tie question seems to me to resolve itself into one as to whether the loss sustained by the assessee in this case was one which can be described as incidental to his business. If it was, then he is entitled to have his profits upon which he is liable to pay income-tax reduced by the amount of that loss. It was argued for the assessee: (1) that the robbery of the assessees money was one which was incidental to his business of a money lender; and (2) that the money stolen was his "stock-in-trade" because it was money which, had it not been stolen, was available to him for the purpose of lending to borrowers and making a profit thereby. There is no evidence in this case that this sum was "stock-in-trade" at all and the money would seem to me to be capital plus the profits collected by the assessee. If this money was capital, then the assessee would not be entitled to a deduction on account of its loss. So far as the