9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (9) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0, a revised return was filed on 30-6-1981 disclosing income of Rs. 7,580. Similarly, for the assessment year 1980-81, a revised return was filed on 30-6-1981 showing income of Rs. 12,515. 3. In both the years under consideration, the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80U of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The learned ITO was of the view that the case of the assessee is not covered under the CBDT Circular No. 246, dated 20-9-1978. So, he disallowed the claim in both the years under consideration. 4. The assessee took up the matter in appeal. Inter alia it was contended that the assessee is an IAS officer and has been in the service since the year 1951 onwards. It was contended that the assessee had become almost deaf wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al person and as a result of which his capacity to engage in the gainful employment to the best of his ability stood substantially reduced. The learned counsel contended that in both the years under consideration, the assessee was subject to or suffered from a permanent physical disability (other than blindness), which had the effect of reducing substantially his capacity to engage in a gainful employment or occupation. In support of this, the assessee has already filed a certificate from a registered medical practitioner. Since the said certificate was not found to be bogus or not genuine, the ITO is bound to allow deduction under section 80U(ii), proviso (b), of the said section. In this connection, it was contended that the appellant i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing the contentions of the parties, we would like to point out that relief under the old section 80U was granted by allowing to totally blind individuals, a deduction of Rs. 2,000 in the computation of their taxable income. In order to qualify for this relief, the individual had to produce in respect of the first assessment year for which such relief was claimed, a certificate as to his total blindness from a registered medical practitioner who was on the list. For the subsequent assessment year in respect of which the relief was claimed, such a certificate was not required. Such relief was available for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71. From the assessment year 1971-72, the newly substituted section provides for a deduction of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertificate was issued by Dr. Chhatra Singh Anand, MS, DLD, FRSM, Head of the ENT Department, Maharaja Yeshwantrao Hospital, Indore. We may point out that it is not the case of the authorities below that this certificate is not genuine. Even before the Tribunal no such argument was advanced that the said certificate is not genuine. In the absence of any such material, we will have to presume that the said certificate is genuine and it was issued by the Head of the ENT Deptt., Maharaja Yeshwantrao Hospital, Indore. In the said certificate the doctor opined that the assessee had been suffering, from a date prior to the year 1976, from such a permanent physical disability as has the effect of reducing his capacity to engage in a gainful employm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 80U. The said guidelines are not exhaustive. At least the said circular letter nowhere says that if the assessee claims that he was subject to or suffers from a permanent physical disability which has the effect of reducing substantially his capacity to engage in a gainful employment or occupation and in support of such a claim, a certificate, as referred to in clause (ii), was issued by a registered medical practitioner, in that case also the assessee would not be entitled to deduction under section 80U. 12. We may point out at this stage that the highest executive authority is the CBDT which is constituted under the Central Board of Revenue Act, 1963. Its power of administrative supervision and control extend over the whole departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wise put him in a worse position than he is under the statute. 15. We may state that if the assessee is entitled to deduction under proviso to section 80U(ii) itself, even if his case does not come within the ambit of circular letter issued by the CBDT, the claim under section 80U cannot be refused. 16. For the reasons discussed above, we are fully satisfied that in the present case it is proved that in both the years under consideration, the assessee was subject to or suffered from a permanent physical disability which had the effect of reducing substantially his capacity to engage in a gainful employment or occupation. Thus, he is entitled to deduction under section 80U in both the years under consideration as claimed. The finding of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
