G.S. Kulkarni JUDGMENT
G.S. Kulkarni, J.
1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act),the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) has referred the following question of law for answer the opinion of this Court :
" Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 43,600/- on medical treatment of eyes for improving the vision has an element of personal expenditure, and accordingly the expenditure incurred by the appellant on foreign tour for pre-operation investigation relating to his eyes cannot be allowed as business expenditure u/s 37(1) ".
In nutshell the facts are :-
2. The applicant-assessee is a Solicitor by profession. During the assessment year 1986-87, the applicant incurred an expenditure of Rs. 43,600/- on a foreign tour in connection with a pre-operation investigation of his eyes while determining his total income. This claim was disallowed by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 31st March, 1987 passed under section 143 (3) of the Act on the ground it was personal expenditure. Therefore, it did not arise in the course of the profession nor was it incidental to the profession.
3. The applicant being aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 31st March, 1987 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). By order dated 12th October, 1988 the CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer disallowing the said expenditure on the ground that if the logic of the applicant is stretched, it would mean that even expenditure incurred on food to preserve oneself should also be treated as allowable under Section 37(1) of the Act as being incurred for business or profession.
4. The applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 12th October, 1988 passed by the CIT (A) approached the Tribunal. By an order dated 13th September 1994 the Tribunal concurred with the findings of the Assessing Officer and the C.I.T.(Appeals) disallowing the expenditure incurred for investigation of the eyes. The Tribunal inter alia relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of State of Madras vs. C.J. Coelho (MANU/SC/0162/1964 : 53 ITR 186) to hold that the correct connotation of the words "personal expenses" would mean only expenses on the person of the assessee or to satisfy his personal needs such as clothes, food etc or for the purposes not related to business. On the above basis, it observed that eyes are an important organ for an effective living of every human being and in case of any defect in the eyes the medical treatment ther........