The assessee, a lawyer, claimed that on account of his work he suffered a heart attack and thus claimed a deduction under s 31 of the expenditure incurred by him on coronary surgery on the ground that the heart was a “plant” and the expenditure was incurred on “current repairs”. The assessee also claimed that after the operation his gross professional receipts has increased substantially and in case the expense incurred by the assessee was not allowable under s 31, it surely fell within the domain of s 37 since the expenditure was “wholly and exclusively” for the profession of the assessee. The AO, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal rejected the assessee’s claim for a deduction both under s 31 and s 37. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal.
The issue is whether the expenses incurred by the assessee, a lawyer, on a coronary bypass operation is allowable as a deduction either under s 31 or s 37.
The assessee’s claim for a deduction under s 31 is rejected for two reasons: firstly, if the heart of a human being were to be considered a plant, it would necessarily mean that it is an asset which should have found a mention in the assessee’s balance sheet of the previous year in issue, as also, in the earlier years. This was not done and cannot be done as the cost of acquisition of such an asset cannot be determined. Secondly, even if one were to give the widest meaning to the word “plant” in s 31, it would still not fall within the definition of the word plant as a heart does not satisfy the functionality test. It cannot be said that the assessee who is a lawyer would have used his heart as a tool for his professional activity. The fact that a healthy and a functional human heart is necessary for a human being irrespective of his vocation or social strata is stating the obvious.
The claim for a deduction under s 37 is also rejected as the expense have not been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the assessee’s profession. An impaired heart would handicap the functionality of a human being irrespective of his position, status or vocation in life. There is no direct or immediate nexus between the expenses incurred by the assessee on the coronary surgery and his efficiency in the professional field per se.
Heart Surgery expenses incurred by the professionals are not allowable as deduction either under s 31 or s 37 — as held by DelHC in Shanti Bhushan v CIT — In favour of: The Revenue ; ITR No. 230/1994
Decided on: 31 May 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment