COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. B R PATEL

ITR/223/1994

AI Insights

The case involves the Commissioner of Income-Tax versus B R Patel, where the primary legal question was whether a consulting cardiologist could be considered as carrying on a business as an industrial undertaking, thus eligible for investment allowance on new machinery installed in his clinic under Section 32A of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the assessee for the assessment year 1981-82, a decision which was accepted by the revenue. The current reference for the assessment year 1987-88 sought to challenge this precedent. However, the High Court found no need to remand the matter, citing the lack of distinguishing features from the earlier case where the revenue had accepted the Tribunal's decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2001] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 718336 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2001
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: 225 ITR 936
• Laws Referred To: Section 32A of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SR DIVETIA
• Assessee Lawyers: MIHIR JOSHI; MANISH BHATT
• Keywords: Assessment Year 1987-88; Income Tax; Industrial Undertaking; Investment allowance; Consulting cardiologist; New machinery
• Section: 32A

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 223 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus B R PATEL -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 223 of 1994 MR MIHIR JOSHI with MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner MR SR DIVETIA for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Date of decision: 07/11/2001 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA) At the instance of the Commissioner, the Tribunal has referred the following question pertaining to assessment year 1987-88 :- \"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee who was engaged in a profession as consulting cardiologist could be said to be carrying on a business as an industrial undertaking, which produced an article of things and was thus entitled to investment allowance u/s.32A of the Act on the new machinery installed in his clinic ?\" 2. We have heard Mr Mihir Joshi and Mr SN Divetia for the respective parties. Our attention was invited by Mr Divetia to the fact that the Tribunal has relied upon its own decision in assessee's own case for assessment year 1981-82 and that the revenue has accepted the said decision. In view of this peculiar fact situation it was urged that the revenue must not be permitted to contend to the contrary in case of this assessee atleast. Mr Mihir Joshi relied upon 225 ITR 936, a decision of this Court, wherein the Court has after laying down the principles as to what would constitute business in case of a professional directed the Tribunal to adjust its decision under Section 260(1) of the Act. It was, therefore, submitted that in the present reference also we must likewise direct the Tribunal to apply those principles after ascertaining the facts which may come on record. 3. In our view, it is not necessary to remand this matter in light of the peculiar facts and circumstances that have come on record. Once the revenue has accepted that this particular assessee is entitled to investment allowance in assessment year 1981-82, and there are no distinguishing features placed on record to take any other view, it is not necessary to remand the matter as requested by the revenue. In view of the factual position in relation to earlier assessment year which has come on record, we decline to answer the question referred to us. 4. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (M.S. Shah, J.) (D.A. Mehta, J.) sundar/- "