INCOME TAX OFFICER v. R.N. SEHGAL
[Citation -1986-LL-0822-1]

Citation 1986-LL-0822-1
Appellant Name INCOME TAX OFFICER
Respondent Name R.N. SEHGAL
Court ITAT
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 22/08/1986
Assessment Year 1982-83
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags physical disability • medical certificate • gainful employment • totally blind
Bot Summary: The only dispute raised by the Revenue in this appeal is regarding deduction under s. 80J to the assessee, who is a practising advocate, on the basis of permanent disability in his eyes which has considerably reduced his earning capacity. The assessee had put in its claim for deduction under s. 80U but failed before the ITO and when the matter came before the AAC, he succeeded. The section shows that once the terms are complied with by the assessee individual, deduction is to be allowed under mandate given by the registered practitioner because the words used are: there shall be allowed a deduction of a sum of ten thousand rupees. Following is the certificate per Dr. Chopra renowned eye surgeon placed by the assessee on his complation, followed by another prescription of All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi in which serious operation is suggested: This is to certify that Mr Ram Nath Sehgal, Hospital Unit No. 247184 s/o S h Daulat Ram Sehgal, 366, Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana, has been regularly visiting the Eye Department since 16th June, 1981. Besides the Bombay Bench E in the case of Miss Jyoti in 1983 TAXMAN 140 while allowing the assessee's claim explained the meaning of expression 'physical' which strictly meant 'bodily'. Then we have our own decision in the case of Om Pardash vs. ITO 33 CTR 14;(1982) 1ITD 1063 wherein the assessee suffered from pulmonary tuberculosis with bronchial asthma and filed a doctor's certificate which established the permanency and chronicity of the disease which and put him in a physical disability by which his working capacity had been reduced. In the said case, it was held that s. 80U contained a Legislative mandate that deduction should be allowed provided the assessee produces a certificate from a registered medical practitioner to the specified permanent physical disability.


only dispute raised by Revenue in this appeal is regarding deduction under s. 80J to assessee, who is practising advocate, on basis of permanent disability in his eyes which has considerably reduced his earning capacity. assessee had put in its claim for deduction under s. 80U but failed before ITO and when matter came before AAC, he succeeded. It is this action of AAC which is contested by Revenue. ld. Departmental Representative, Mr B.L. Laroiya submitted that first of all we should read s. 80U and he submitted that by reading of sad section, it is mentioned that benefit could be available only to gentleman with disability which results substantially in earning of man. assessee who was present by himself submitted that there are number of Tribunal's decision of this Bench and other Benches in which people with hearing defect, defect in mind, etc., have been granted this benefit. He went on to say that even gentleman with pulmonary tuberculosis with bronchial asthma had been granted this benefit. He also drew our attention to certificate from Dr S.K. Chopra, Professor of Ophthalmology, Christian Medical College and Browh Memorial Hospital, Ludhiana, and submitted that in presence of said certificate, assessee's claim was rightly allowed by ld. AAC. Section 80U is reproduced hereunder; "80U. In computing total income of individual, being resident, who, as at end of previous year, (i) is totally blind, or (ii) is subject to or suffers from permanent physical disability (other than blindness) which has effect of reducing substantially his capacity to engage in gainful employment or occupation. There shall be allowed deduction of sum of (ten thousand) rupees: Provided that such individual produces before ITO, in respect of first assessment year for which deduction is claimed under this section, (a) in case referred to in cl. (i), certificate as to his total blindness from registered medical practitioner being oculist; and (b) in case referred to in cl. (ii), certificate as to permanent physical disability referred to in said clause from registered medical practitioner." At simple reading of above section shows that for purpose of claiming deduction under this section, individual, who is resident, at end of the, previous year, in respect of assessment year in which deduction is claimed, should produce certificate from registered medical practitioner as to permanent physical disability, referred to in said clause. section shows that once terms are complied with by assessee individual, deduction is to be allowed under mandate given by registered practitioner because words used are: "there shall be allowed deduction of sum of ten thousand rupees". Following is certificate per Dr. Chopra renowned eye surgeon placed by assessee on his complation, followed by another prescription of All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi in which serious operation is suggested: "This is to certify that Mr Ram Nath Sehgal, Hospital Unit No. 247184 s/o S h Daulat Ram Sehgal, 366, Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana, has been regularly visiting Eye Department since 16th June, 1981. He was diagnosed as Presenile Mature Cataract in right eye in January, 1982. His vision in right eye during 1982 and up to 31st March, 1983 was only Light perception and projection only and was thus completely visually handicapped in that eye, thus reducing substantially his capacity to normal work. Visual acuity 6/9 with glasses in left eye. When this is position, there is no dispute about fact that in one of eyes of assessee advocate, there is hardly any vision left. Under circumstances, saying that he does not suffer from permanent disability will be wrong and fact that income has not gone down does not indicate that it has not affected his earning capacity substantially. assessee, who is advocate himself, submitted of that income has not gone down because of increase in quantity of work and then he also submitted that he has employed two-three persons who assists him, as he himself is physically disabled. He could go to any extent in professional earning if he was all over. Besides Bombay Bench "E" in case of Miss Jyoti in 1983 TAXMAN 140 (Bom-Tribe) while allowing assessee's claim explained meaning of expression 'physical' which strictly meant 'bodily'. Then we have our own decision in case of Om Pardash vs. ITO (1983) 33 CTR (Trib) (Chd) 14;(1982) 1ITD 1063 (Chd) wherein assessee suffered from pulmonary tuberculosis with bronchial asthma and filed doctor's certificate which established permanency and chronicity of disease which and put him in physical disability by which his working capacity had been reduced. In said case, it was held that s. 80U contained Legislative mandate that deduction should be allowed provided assessee produces certificate from registered medical practitioner to specified permanent physical disability. In instant case, not only medical certificate from renowned doctor but even prescription from AIIMS is on record. There is another Tribunal's decision vs. ITO (1983)3 ITD 151 (Ind) where benefit was granted to man who was suffering from defective hearing. Defective eyes are more serious than defective hearing and, therefore, it naturally affects earning or results in reducing substantially his capacity to engage in gainful employment or occupation. In light of above discussion and for reasons given by AAC in his order, his action is here by confirmed. In result, appeal is dismissed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. R.N. SEHGAL
Report Error