9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Claim for deduction under section 80U of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on permanent physical disability. 2. Interpretation of the term "permanent physical disability" under section 80U. 3. Consideration of medical evidence and expert opinion in determining eligibility for deduction under section 80U. Analysis: 1. The appellant, an Advocate, filed a return of income for the assessment year 1983-84, claiming a deduction under section 80U of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to a significant reduction in professional income caused by illness. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the claim citing a circular and lack of identical disease match. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) also dismissed the appeal, stating Parkinsonism is not a permanent physical disability under section 80U. 2. The appellant contended in the appeal that Parkinsonism had advanced, causing a permanent physical disability, supported by medical evidence and references to relevant circulars. The appellant's counsel argued that the disease substantially reduced the capacity to engage in gainful employment, making the appellant eligible for the deduction. The Departmental Representative opposed, claiming insufficient proof of permanent physical disability. 3. The Tribunal analyzed the medical certificate, noting the effects of Parkinsonism on the appellant's speech, joints, and tremors. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of speech and writing abilities in the legal profession, highlighting the substantial impact of the disease on the appellant's capacity to work. The Tribunal considered the counsel's statement at the bar, acknowledging the appellant's inability to perform legal duties due to the disability. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, citing the advanced stage of Parkinsonism as a qualifying permanent physical disability under section 80U. The Tribunal rejected the Department's argument, emphasizing the substantial impact on the appellant's capacity to engage in gainful occupation. 4. The Tribunal distinguished between expert medical opinion and the counsel's statement, giving weight to the latter due to the advocate's direct observation of the appellant's condition. The Tribunal interpreted the relevant circulars and rules, concluding that Parkinsonism, causing loss of speech and writing abilities, qualifies as a permanent physical disability for section 80U relief. The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders, allowing the appellant's appeal and granting the deduction under section 80U. 5. In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the appellant, suffering from advanced Parkinsonism resulting in a permanent physical disability affecting professional capacity, is entitled to relief under section 80U of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment emphasized the substantial impact of the disability on the appellant's legal profession and overturned the previous decisions, granting the appellant the claimed deduction.
|
