Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 1991 (1) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1991 (1) TMI 191 - AT - Income Tax

Issues:
Claim for deduction under section 80U of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the assessee's claim for a deduction of Rs. 15,000 under section 80U of the Income Tax Act. The assessee, an individual who underwent an operation for 'Glaucama' in the right eye resulting in no visual ability in that eye, sought the deduction based on a certificate from a Consulting Eye Surgeon stating a 55% permanent disability. However, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the claim, citing that the conditions of section 80U were not met as the assessee was not considered totally blind. The first appellate authority upheld the ITO's decision, emphasizing that relief under section 80U is for individuals who are totally blind. The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that the provisions should be interpreted liberally to benefit handicapped persons. The department representative supported the ITO's decision, emphasizing the requirement of total blindness for the deduction.

The Tribunal analyzed section 80U of the Income Tax Act, which allows a deduction for individuals who are totally blind or suffer from a specified permanent physical disability substantially reducing their capacity for gainful employment. The relevant rule, Rule 11D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, outlines categories of permanent physical disabilities for the purpose of the deduction. The Tribunal concluded that relief under section 80U is only applicable to individuals who are totally blind, as specified in the law. The Tribunal highlighted the requirement of a certificate from a registered medical practitioner confirming total blindness for the deduction. In this case, the certificate provided by the Consulting Eye Surgeon did not state total blindness but rather mentioned no visual ability in the right eye, indicating the assessee was not totally blind. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the IT authorities and dismissed the appeal, as the conditions for the deduction under section 80U were not satisfied by the assessee.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates