9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 660 - SC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80DD - Deduction in respect of maintenance including medical treatment of a dependent who is a person with disability - payment of annuity of a lump sum amount for the benefit of a dependant, being a person with disability, in the event of death of the individual or the member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) in whose name the subscription to the scheme stipulated in the said provision has been made - HELD THAT - We find it difficult to accept the plea made by petitioner to the effect that the said amendment be applied retrospectively to policies which were taken prior to 2014 so that the benefit of the amendment is given to those subscribers also. The reasons are not far to see. The whole object of Jeevan Adhar Policy is to benefit disabled persons by making provision by the subscriber post his demise. The concern and apprehension of a caregiver or subscriber of a policy for a disabled family member or other person for whose benefit the policy is taken after the demise of the caregiver is of utmost significance. It is only with that object that the caregiver or a subscriber would take such a policy so that he would not leave a disabled person in the lurch on his demise. If that is the object of the policy then we do not think the subscriber or the caregiver of the subscriber should be given the liberty to discontinue the policy during his lifetime on attaining 60 years of age. That would only go against the object with which the policy has been taken and against the interest of the beneficiary, namely, a disabled person. We do not think that the plea for retrospective operation of the amendment is in the interest of the disabled persons nor can this Court give a retrospective operation to the amendment. This is particularly having regard to the fact that an insurance contract is in a sense, a commercial contract, having certain terms and conditions and the sub-stratum of the contract cannot be removed by giving a retrospective operation to the amendment. The benefit under Section 80DD of the Act would have been availed by the subscribers at the time when they have subscribed to the policy. It is also relevant to note that the order passed by this Court 2023 (2) TMI 1336 - SUPREME COURT (the earlier writ petition), this Court disposed of the contempt petition for the reason that the Respondent-Union of India had amended Section 80DD of the Act via Budget 2022-2023 Finance Act and therefore, the grievance of the persons like the petitioner had stood addressed though with prospective effect. As considered the Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of the People with Disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Region, 1992; and the subsequent enactments, namely, the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 which has been substituted by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, as well as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol 2006; and, the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 80DD of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Retroactive application of the amendment to Section 80DD. 3. Concerns regarding the benefits to disabled persons under the policy. 4. Compliance with previous court orders and legislative amendments. Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 80DD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The writ petition sought the execution of decisions by the Central Information Commission and the Apex Court related to Section 80DD of the Income Tax Act. The provision deals with deductions for medical treatment and maintenance of dependents with disabilities. The Parliament amended Section 80DD through the Finance Act, 2022, to include provisions for annuity or lump sum payments for disabled dependents upon the death of the subscriber. Issue 2: Retroactive Application of the Amendment The petitioner argued for retrospective application of the amendment to policies predating 2014, allowing subscribers to discontinue policies upon turning 60. However, the Court emphasized the policy's objective to provide for disabled dependents post the subscriber's demise. The Court rejected the plea for retrospective application, citing the commercial nature of insurance contracts and the importance of upholding the policy's original intent. Issue 3: Concerns Regarding Benefits to Disabled Persons The Court highlighted the significance of ensuring the policy's benefits reach disabled persons as intended. It stressed the caregiver or subscriber's responsibility to provide for disabled dependents post their demise, emphasizing the policy's purpose. The Court deemed retroactive application detrimental to disabled persons' interests and upheld the sanctity of insurance contracts. Issue 4: Compliance with Previous Court Orders and Legislative Amendments The Court acknowledged the Parliament's amendment to Section 80DD in response to earlier court orders and disposed of a contempt petition accordingly. It considered international proclamations and domestic legislation related to the rights of persons with disabilities in reaching its decision to not apply the amendment retrospectively. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the plea for retrospective application of the amendment to Section 80DD, emphasizing the policy's objective to benefit disabled dependents post the subscriber's demise. The judgment was in line with previous court orders and legislative amendments, ensuring compliance with the law and upholding the interests of disabled persons.
|
