9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Denial of benefit under section 80U of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to a handicapped assessee for assessment years 1991-92 to 1995-96 by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat 11, Ahmedabad. Analysis: The judgment addressed the dispute regarding the denial of benefits under section 80U of the Income-tax Act to a handicapped assessee for specific assessment years. The assessee did not initially claim the benefit before the Income-tax Officer for the relevant years. Subsequently, applications were made to the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 264 with requests for condonation of delay to claim the benefit of section 80U. A medical certificate indicating a 65% permanent physical disability in both lower limbs was submitted. The Commissioner raised concerns about the certificate's validity, particularly questioning the doctor's status as a Government hospital employee. The Commissioner emphasized the requirement for the certificate to be from a doctor working in a Government hospital. He doubted the efficacy of the certificate due to the doctor's honorary position at the Gujarat Cancer Research Institute. The Commissioner's decision to deny the benefit was based on the absence of a claim before the Assessing Officer and doubts regarding the certificate's authenticity. However, the petitioner challenged this decision, highlighting inconsistencies in the Commissioner's reasoning. The High Court analyzed the statutory provisions related to claiming benefits under section 80U. It noted the amendment requiring certification by a physician, surgeon, oculist, or psychiatrist working in a Government hospital. The court clarified that the statute does not restrict the doctor's employment status at the hospital beyond the requirement of working there. The judgment emphasized that the Assessing Officer should not adjudicate on the certificate's correctness if it meets the statutory conditions. The court found fault with the Commissioner's rejection of the certificate based on the doctor's honorary position, as the Gujarat Cancer Research Institute qualified as a Government hospital. It emphasized that the genuineness and proper sourcing of the certificate had been accepted for subsequent years. The judgment highlighted that the Assessing Officer's role is not to question the certificate's correctness if it meets the statutory criteria. Ultimately, the court allowed the petition, quashed the Commissioner's order, and directed a fresh decision on granting benefits under section 80U in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues related to the denial of benefits under section 80U of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the statutory requirements for certification by a medical practitioner working in a Government hospital. It clarified the Assessing Officer's limited role in scrutinizing the certificate's genuineness and upheld the petitioner's claim for the benefit based on the valid medical certificate provided.
|
