9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xists from January, 1979. The relief under section 80U of the Act was sought for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1988-89. The application revision petition under section 264 of the Act was filed on April 13, 1990. The Commissioner rejected the application on the ground that the assessee's income rose from Rs. 29,790 in 1986-87 to Rs. 49,040, in 1988-89 and so it could not be said that the physical disability had led to reduction in his capacity to engage himself in gainful employment or occupation. The income derived by the assessee was by money-lending and from shares from certain firms. The assessee also owned immovable properties. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that the order of the Commissioner is plainly contrary to the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he categories specified below, namely :-- (a) permanent physical disability of more than 50 per cent. in one limb ; or (b) permanent physical disability of more than 60 per cent. in two or more limbs ; or (c) permanent deafness with hearing impairment of 71 decibels and above ;or (d) permanent and total loss of voice. The assessee here suffers from physical handicap of more than 50 per cent. in one limb as seen from the certificate issued by the doctor. The physical disability of the assessee, therefore, is one which clearly falls within rule 11D, clause (i)(a) and is thus "physical disability" for the purpose of section 80U of the Act. Having regard to the beneficial object of these provisions, the further enquiry as to whether t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovision is as it should be construed liberally, persons who are handicapped must be entitled to the benefit of deduction provided for in that section if the handicap is one which is specified in the rule. That a liberal construction should be placed on section 80U of the Act is also the view of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sardar Harpreet Singh v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 679, wherein it was observed that it is not a condition precedent for allowing the deduction under the provision that the assessee should be unemployed or should not be earning anything. Further, merely because the assessee has an income from some business, deduction under section 80U of the Act cannot be disallowed, for, had he not suffered from a permanent disabilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
