HC rejects Shanti Bhushan’s plea seeking IT waiver for surgery

Bhushan and counsel Rohit Kumar Singh appeared on behalf of him.

Section 31 of the Income Tax Act provides for grant of deduction in levy of income tax if the expenses incurred are on “repairs and insurance of machinery,plant and furniture.”

The Delhi High Court had earlier dismissed Bhushan’s plea for granting him tax exemption on the expenses incurred for the heart surgery undergone by him in December 1978 in Houston in the USA.

The senior advocate,in his petition,claimed the cost on his surgery,which was conducted after he suffered a heart attack in December 1978,be treated as cost incurred in repairing a plant as “the repair of his vital organ was directly related to his professional competence.”

The Delhi High Court had dismissed Bhushan’s plea challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s order dismissing his claim.

“We are of the opinion that concerning judgements and riders of the authorities below ought not to be disturbed. It is ordered accordingly. The question of law is thus answered in the negative and against the assessee (Bhushan),” a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Rajiv Shakdher had said.

The high court had upheld the Tribunal’s May 19,1994,order rejecting the noted lawyer’s plea that the expenses incurred on his heart bypass surgery be allowed as “allowable deduction” under the IT Act.

“If the heart of a human being,as in the case of the assessee,were to be considered as a plant,it would mean that it is an asset which should have found a mention in the assessee’s balancesheet of the previous year…,” the court said.

“In our view,before the expenses on repair of plant are admitted as a deduction,the plant would necessarily have to be reflected as an asset in the books of accounts,” it said.

Initially,Bhushan had,in his IT return for 1983-84,declared his total income of Rs 2,15,520 and later filed a revised return scaling down his income,saying he spent Rs 1.74 lakh on his heart surgery in the USA.

He sought the waiver in income tax,saying his professional competence had been adversely affected following the surgery and the expenses be treated as cost on repair of a plant,as described in the IT Act.

The IT department officials cited records,pertaining to income of the lawyer during subsequent assessment years,to drive home the point that his earnings did not go down after the surgery and,in fact,rose considerably.

For the purposes of the IT Act,the heart be treated as a plant and cost in its repairs be deducted from the income,Bhushan had said.

The court had said “it cannot be said that the assessee (Bhushan),who is a lawyer,would have used his heart as a tool for his professional activity,” the court said.