2005 (4) TMI 13 - HC - Income Tax

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assessee was not totally blind in keeping in view the clear finding of the doctor that the assessee is a blind person? - In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the assessee is a totally blind person and the Tribunal was not right in holding otherwise. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the term "totally blind" under section 80U of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The judgment in question pertains to a reference under the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the eligibility of an assessee for deduction under section 80U. The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of the term "totally blind" as per the provisions of section 80U of the Act. The assessee, a partner in a firm, claimed a deduction under section 80U, supported by a medical certificate indicating limited vision to hand movement only. The Income-tax Officer denied the deduction, stating that the assessee was not "totally blind." The case proceeded through the appellate authorities and the Tribunal, all of which upheld the denial of the deduction.

The court analyzed the legislative intent behind section 80U, which was introduced to provide relief to totally blind individuals. The original provision specified a deduction for individuals who were totally blind at the end of the previous year. Subsequent amendments extended the benefit to those with permanent physical disabilities other than blindness. The court examined the medical certificate provided by the assessee, which described the vision as limited to hand movement and certified the individual as a blind person. The court also considered definitions of blindness from medical literature and the World Health Organization.

The court emphasized that total blindness, as per section 80U, refers to the inability to perceive light. It noted that the term "totally blind" does not imply complete isolation from the surroundings but rather a permanent inability to perceive light. The judgment highlighted the heightened sensitivity of other senses in blind individuals and cited a legal precedent regarding the loss of vision constituting the loss of an eye. The court gave weight to the expertise of the doctor who issued the medical certificate from a reputable institution, emphasizing that expert opinions in specialized fields are generally conclusive.

In conclusion, the court held that the assessee qualified as a totally blind person under section 80U, disagreeing with the Tribunal's decision. The judgment favored the assessee, emphasizing the permanent nature of blindness and the expert medical opinion provided. The court set aside the Tribunal's finding and ruled in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs.