Revenue by present appeal challenge first appellate order dt. 9th Aug., 1986 of learned AAC, New Delhi for asst. yr. 1983-84 on following ground: "On facts and in circumstances of case, learned AAC was not justified in directing ITO to allow deduction under s. 80-U of IT Act, which was rightly disallowed by ITO". By status assessee is individual and engaged in contract business. Accounting period was year ending 31st March, 1983 Assessee's claim under s. 80-U of IT Act, 1961 was disallowed by learned ITO with following observation: "The assessee has further claimed deduction under s. 80-U to tune of Rs. 10,000. assessee has filed copy of certificate from Dr. V.L. Kocher who has certified that assessee is suffering from post-polio paralysis of right lower extremity with foot drops and as such physically handicapped person. assessee was asked to explain that how it is permanent physical disability entitling assessee to claim deduction under s. 80U. Because nature of disability mentioned in certificate firstly does not state that disability is permanent and secondly it has not been certified that this disability has substantially reduced his capacity to engage in gainful employment or occupation. Perusal of previous records shows assessee has progressed in earning income year after year and as such, claim of assessee is not allowed." issue was contested by assessee and Shri Y.P. Batra, learned advocate made following submissions before learned AAC: (a) that assessee was suffering from post polio paralysis of right lower extremity with foot drops: (b) he was unable to move without help of stick and even with help of stick he can move very little; and (c) disability was permanent and incurable as has been certified by medical authorities. Mention of certificate from Dr. V.L. Kochar was made. On basis of above arguments it was contended that allowance under s. 80-U claimed at Rs. 10,000 should have not been denied by learned ITO. Assessee's appeal was allowed by learned AAC with following observation: "2.1 I have carefully considered facts and circumstances of case. T h e appellant is 74 years of age and is physically handicapped as per certificate of Dr. V.L. Kochar of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. increase in income is matter of luck as also depends on contracts received. In my opinion, appellant is suffering from permanent disability and he is entitle for deduction under s. 80-U of IT Act. ITO is directed to allow same as per Rules. In result, appeal is allowed." Revenue's present ground before us is against that finding of learned AAC. On behalf of Revenue learned departmental representative supported assessment order on point. On behalf of assessee naturally impugned findings was supported and outpatient ticket from Irwin Hospital, New Delhi dt. 1st Nov., 1976 was also produced. It was assessee's case before us that he was physically handicapped person and that disability was permanent. According to learned counsel wrong finding was rightly vacated by learned first appellate authority. Rival submission have been heard and considered and record carefully perused. assessee is said to be civil contractor. assessment order indicates that assessee has progressed in earning income year after year. That aspect indicates that there is hike in assessee's annual income. Assessee appears to have placed before learned ITO certificate dt. 1st Nov., 1983 issued by Dr. V.L. Kochar. According to said certificate Shri R.S. Duggal was examined on 30th June, 1983 and certificate was issued on 1st Nov., 1983. According to certificate assessee was physically handicapped person and disability was said to be permanent. That certificate was rightly not acted upon by learned ITO for simple reason that it relates to date after expiry of accounting period we are concerned with. Moreover existence of disease and disability by itself may not be sufficient. What is more what is required is that such disease and disability should have effect of reducing substantially assessee's capacity to engage in gainful employment or vocation. This fact is clear neither from certificate nor from assessment order. In fact assessment order gives impression that assessee's earnings are increasing year after year. assessee's claim under s. 80-U was denied by learned ITO in these circumstances. learned AAC without meeting learned ITO's reasons for denying assessee's claim allowed relief. This, in our view, was not proper. In fact learned first appellate authority should have examined record to satisfy that during relevant accounting period assessee was suffering with some disease which caused permanent physical disability reducing assessee's capacity to be engaged in gainful employment. This is what exactly not seen to have been done. finding of learned AAC is, therefore, erroneous on account of that. assessee's case, in our view, does not also get any support from outpatient ticket dt. 1st Nov., 1976 as in that only 20 days bed rest is seen to have been advised without mentioning that assessee was suffering from type of disease mentioned in r. 11D of IT Rules. In any case ticket dt. 1st Nov., 1976 does not pertain to assessment year under consideration either. In view of our above discussion we are constrained to hold that learned AAC was not justified to disturb correct finding recorded by learned ITO in this regard. We vacate impugned finding and restore that of learned ITO. In result appeal is allowed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. R.S. DUGGAL