The fight over the heart of civil society's Shanti Bhushan

Is the heart a plant? That’s a plant, as in a factory, not a rose bush. And if it is, can coronary surgery count as “plant repairs” as far as your income tax is concerned? Shanti Bhushan, one of the pillars of the civil society in the fight for the LokPal, thinks that makes perfect sense. [caption id=“attachment_28436” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Lawyers could claim no special tool-of-the-trade rights on their heart compared to anyone else. PTI”]  [/caption] According to the legal news website Bar and Bench, the Delhi High Court has had to resort to some dil-e-nadan shairi to come to its verdict about Shanti Bhushan’s heart. Here are the facts. In the assessment year 1983-84, Shanti Bhushan had filed an income tax return declaring a total income of Rs 2,15,520. This return was later revised and he claimed a sum of Rs 1,74,000 as expense incurred by him due to coronary surgery performed on him in Houston, USA. Bar and Bench writes:

Mr. Bhushan claimed waiver under Section 31 of the Income Tax Act (IT Act) which, inter-alia permits deduction of expenditure incurred on current repairs of plant. His stand was that a human heart is in the nature of a ‘plant’ and therefore the expenditure incurred by him on the coronary surgery was akin to expenses incurred on current repairs of a plant.

That was rejected by the Assessing Officer. Mr Bhushan filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax. The CIT rejected the appeal. Undaunted, Mr Bhushan went to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which also rebuffed him. In rebuffing him the Tribunal resorted to the case of CIT vs Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd  writes Bar and Bench.

It said “for the expenses incurred on the repair of the plant to be allowed, the assessee would have to demonstrably show that the plant was used as a “tool” with which he carried out his business or professional activity.” The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee could not have demonstrated that heart was used as a “tool of his trade” since the heart was even otherwise an organ, essential for normal and healthy functioning of a human body, and not necessarily for a professional, such as a lawyer. This is not the same, said the Tribunal, as a cricket claiming his fingers as a tool of his trade.

The good thing for Mr Bhushan, is the Tribunal did NOT say lawyers were heartless, just that they could claim no special tool-of-the-trade rights on their heart compared to anyone else. Now the Delhi High Court has turned him down as well. Mr  Bhushan had presented several cases in his defence including one involving Mehboob Khan of Mother India fame. Khan had a heart attack in the US while promoting Mother India and a fight arose about whether his company should bear the medical expenses. The Court said while Khan had a heart attack while in the US on business, Mr  Bhushan went to the US to have heart surgery done. The court said the question had even been raised because of the “obvious artfulness’ of Mr Bhushan who it called one of the country’s most “seasoned and experienced” practitioners of law. But unfortunately for Mr Bhushan, the course of true love  (and law) never did run smooth. Here is what  the court concluded:

Firstly if the heart of a human being, as in the case of the assessee, 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. Apart from the fact that this is admittedly not so, the difficulty that the assessee would face in showing the same in his books of accounts would be of arriving at the cost of acquisition of such an asset.

More from Politics

Is Shashi Tharoor’s breakup with Congress inevitable? ‘Naxalism will end in India by March 2026’: Amit Shah at CRPF Raising Day parade

Thank goodness. Centuries of poetry might have come undone in one  fell swoop if the heart was suddenly turned into a factory with balance sheets, striking workers and lockouts? Perhaps cognizant of just that the Delhi High Court even quoted some poetry in their judgement. Dil-e-nadan tujhe hua kya hai, akhir iss dard ke dawa kya hai (What ails the heart? What is the remedy of this malady?) For the curious, you can read a full copy of the judgement on Bar and Bench.