The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jalandhar v. Dr. S.k. Ohri

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR No. 123 of 1992.Date of Decision : 4.2.2009. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar. Versus ....Petitioner Dr. S.K. Ohri, Prop. Ohri Maternity Hospital, Jalandhar. ....Respondent CORAM:Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S. KheharHon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh Present :Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate,for the Petitioner-revenue.J.S. Khehar. J. (Oral) In the present reference addressed to this Court by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (Amritsar Bench), an answer has beensought to the following proposition of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right inlaw in holding that the assessee, who is a Doctor inmedical profession was entitled to InvestmentAllowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act,1961 on Scanning Machine?” Learned counsel for the Revenue has invited this Court's attention to thedecisions rendered by different High Courts dealing with the propositionreferred for adjudication. Reference in this behalf was first of all made to the decision rendered by the Kerala High Court inCommissioner of Income Tax versus Upasana Hospital(1997) 225 ITR 845. It was pointed out thatthe Investment Allowance claimed in the afore-stated case, was on account ITR No. 123 of 1992. of purchase of X-ray Plant and ECG equipment. In Upasana Hospital'scase (supra), the Court arrived at the conclusion that a doctor in themedical profession was entitled to seek a deduction for the purchase ofaforesaid equipment as Investment Allowance under Section 32A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Reference was also made to the decision rendered by the Patna High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Dr. L.C.Mitra(1998) 234 ITR 805 wherein, deduction as Investment Allowanceunder Section 32A of the Act was claimed on account of purchase of partsof an X-ray machine. Herein also, the Patna High Court concluded thepermissibility of the aforesaid claim at the hands of the assessee who was apractising doctor. In Commissioner of Income Tax versus M.L. Aggarwala(1999) 238 ITR 603, the Gauhati High Court held that theassessee was entitled to deduction for the purchase of an Ultra-soundmachine, as also, the purchase of an Air-conditioner and a stabilizer, asInvestment Allowance under Section 32A of the Act. The issue under reference came for determination at thehands of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh inCommissioner of IncomeTax versus Dr. S. Sunder Reddy(2000) 243 ITR 110, wherein, thepurchase of an X-ray machine, fans, stabilizer and scanner, as well as,equipment to be utilized for pathological tests, were treated as purchasesfalling within the scope of Investment Allowance under Section 32A of theAct. The matter was also adjudicated upon by the GujaratHigh Court wherein, it arrived at the conclusion that Air-conditioner and ITR No. 123 of 1992. fans purchased by a professional doctor practising in the field of medicalwould be included within the scope of Investment Allowance under Section32A of the Act. The Court accordingly allowed a deduction to the assesseefor the aforesaid expenses as Investment Allowance. In this behalf,reference may be made to the decision rendered in Commissioner ofIncome Tax versus Nathu Bhai Patel(2006) 285 ITR 67. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the questionframed for the determination by this Court relating to the purchase of aScanner Machine at the hands of a Doctor in the medical profession isentitled to be treated as Investment Allowance under Section 32A of theAct. The reference is accordingly, answered against the Revenue and infavour of the assessee. Reference stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (J.S. Khehar) Judge 4.2.2009.SN (Nawab Singh) Judge