Ranjit R. Shah Vs. Fourth Income-tax Officer - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the only issue involved in this appeal pertains to the assessee's claim for deduction of rs. 15,000 under section sou of the act.2. the assessee is an individual. the assessment year is 1988-89 and the relevant previous year is the corresponding financial year.3. the assessee is not in a position to see with his right eye, as he was operated upon for'glaucama'.in this connection, the assessee obtained a certificate of consulting eye surgeon dr. kirit k. mody which reads as under :- this is to certify that mr. r.r. shah has been operated on 8-11-1978 for glaucama in right eye. he has glaucomatous optic with no visual in the right eye. there is permanent disability to the extent of 55%.4. based on the aforesaid certificate, the assessee claimed that he was entitled to deduction as contemplated under section sou of the act. in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the act, the ito did not accept the assessee's claim in the following manner: as per the provisions of section sou, 'in computing the total income of an individual being a resident, who at the end of the previous year is totally blind ...there shall be allowed a deduction of a sum of rs. 15,000'. doctor's certificate produced by the assessee clearly mentions that the assessee is having poor or no visual in the right eye. as the conditions mentioned in section sou are not satisfied the assessee's claim is rejected.5. in appeal before the first appellate authority, the assessee reiterated the claim for deduction under section sou of the act. the first appellate authority also confirmed the action of the ito as under :- 4. i have gone through the material on the record and the arguments of the appellant. section sou clearly provides that relief is admissible to an assessee who is totally blind. the other disease the list of course it is not exhaustive and illustrative has been given. but in the case of a person who is not suffering from other disease it is necessary that this relief is admissible to an assessee who is totally blind. i, therefore, confirm the order of the assessing officer.6. being aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority, the assessee has come up in appeal before the tribunal. the learned advocate for the assessee reiterated the submissions which were made before the income-tax authorities and strongly urged that they should have granted relief to the assessee as contemplated under section sou of the act. in this connection, he invited my attention to rule 1 id of the income-tax rules, 1962 to urge that since in certain cases relief under section 80u is granted to a physically disable person in respect of one limb oaf body, there was no justification on the part of the it authorities in denying the assessee's claim for deduction under section sou of the act on the ground that the assessee was blind in one eye only and was not totally blind. he further went on to argue that since the provisions of section 80u of the act are meant to help handicapped persons, we should place interpretation in such a way that they get benefit under that section. the learned representative for the department, on the other hand, supported the action of the it authorities. in this connection, he highlighted the fact that the deduction under section 80u of the act is granted to an assessee who is totally blind.7. i have considered the rival submissions of the parties and i do not find any merit in the stand taken on behalf of the assessee. section 80u, as it stood at the relevant time, reads as under :- 80u. (1) in computing the total income of an individual, being a resident, who, as at the end of the previous year,- (ii) is subject to or suffers from a permanent physical disability (other than blindness) (being a permanent physical disability specified in the rules made in this behalf by the board, and) which has the effect of reducing substantially his capacity to engage in a gainful employment or occupation, there shall be allowed a deduction of a sum of fifteen thousand rupees : provided that such individual produces before the assessing officer, in respect of the first assessment year for which deduction is claimed under this section,- (a) in a case referred to in clause (j), a certificate as to his total blindness from a registered medical practitioner being an oculist; and (b) in a case referred to in clause (if), a certificate as to the permanent physical disability referred to in the said clause from a registered medical practitioner. (2) the board shall, in making any rules for specifying any disability for the purposes of clause (if) of sub-section (1), have regard to the nature of such disability and the effect which such disability is likely to have on the capacity of a person subject thereto, or suffering there from, to engage in a gainful employment or occupation. 11d. a permanent physical disability shall be regarded as a permanent physical disability for the purposes of clause (if) of sub-section (1) of section sou if it falls in any one of the 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 (of) permanent and total loss of voice.8. on proper reading of the aforesaid provision, it is quite clear that relief under section 80u could be granted to a blind person if he is totally blind. the provisions of rule 11d are applicable only in the case of the persons who are subject to or suffer from a permanent physical disability other than blindness. in this view of the matter, it is not possible to accept the stand taken on behalf of the assessee that even in case of a person blind in one eye deduction under section 80u of the act would be available. if we were to accept the submission made on behalf of the assessee, we will have to completely ignore the provisions contained in section 80u of the act and the rules thereunder. the proviso to section 80u also makes it clear that on the production of a certificate "to his total blindness from a registered medical practitioner..." is required before an assessing officer can accept the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80u of the act.in the instant case, the certificate of the consulting eye surgeon (reproduced above) does not mention that the assessee is totally blind.on the contrary the certificate says that "no visual in the right eye".in other words, the assessee is not totally blind. in this view of the matter, i have no hesitation in upholding the action of the it authorities.

Judgment:
1. The only issue involved in this appeal pertains to the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 15,000 under section SOU of the Act.

2. The assessee is an individual. The assessment year is 1988-89 and the relevant previous year is the corresponding financial year.

3. The assessee is not in a position to see with his right eye, as he was operated upon for'Glaucama'.In this connection, the assessee obtained a certificate of Consulting Eye Surgeon Dr. Kirit K. Mody which reads as under :- This is to certify that Mr. R.R. Shah has been operated on 8-11-1978 for Glaucama in right eye. He has glaucomatous optic with no visual in the right eye. There is permanent disability to the extent of 55%.

4. Based on the aforesaid certificate, the assessee claimed that he was entitled to deduction as contemplated under section SOU of the Act. In the assessment framed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the ITO did not accept the assessee's claim in the following manner: As per the provisions of section SOU, 'In computing the total income of an individual being a resident, who at the end of the previous year is totally blind ...there shall be allowed a deduction of a sum of Rs. 15,000'. Doctor's certificate produced by the assessee clearly mentions that the assessee is having poor or no visual in the right eye. As the conditions mentioned in section SOU are not satisfied the assessee's claim is rejected.

5. In appeal before the first appellate authority, the assessee reiterated the claim for deduction under section SOU of the Act. The first appellate authority also confirmed the action of the ITO as under :- 4. I have gone through the material on the record and the arguments of the appellant. Section SOU clearly provides that relief is admissible to an assessee who is totally blind. The other disease the list of course it is not exhaustive and illustrative has been given. But in the case of a person who is not suffering from other disease it is necessary that this relief is admissible to an assessee who is totally blind. I, therefore, confirm the order of the Assessing Officer.

6. Being aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Advocate for the assessee reiterated the submissions which were made before the income-tax authorities and strongly urged that they should have granted relief to the assessee as contemplated under section SOU of the Act. In this connection, he invited my attention to Rule 1 ID of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 to urge that since in certain cases relief under Section 80U is granted to a physically disable person in respect of one limb oaf body, there was no justification on the part of the IT authorities in denying the assessee's claim for deduction under section SOU of the Act on the ground that the assessee was blind in one eye only and was not totally blind. He further went on to argue that since the provisions of Section 80U of the Act are meant to help handicapped persons, we should place interpretation in such a way that they get benefit under that section. The learned representative for the department, on the other hand, supported the action of the IT authorities. In this connection, he highlighted the fact that the deduction under Section 80U of the Act is granted to an assessee who is totally blind.

7. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and I do not find any merit in the stand taken on behalf of the assessee. Section 80U, as it stood at the relevant time, reads as under :- 80U. (1) In computing the total income of an individual, being a resident, who, as at the end of the previous year,- (ii) is subject to or suffers from a permanent physical disability (other than blindness) (being a permanent physical disability specified in the rules made in this behalf by the Board, and) which has the effect of reducing substantially his capacity to engage in a gainful employment or occupation, there shall be allowed a deduction of a sum of fifteen thousand rupees : Provided that such individual produces before the Assessing Officer, in respect of the first assessment year for which deduction is claimed under this section,- (a) in a case referred to in Clause (j), a certificate as to his total blindness from a registered medical practitioner being an oculist; and (b) in a case referred to in Clause (if), a certificate as to the permanent physical disability referred to in the said clause from a registered medical practitioner.

(2) The Board shall, in making any rules for specifying any disability for the purposes of Clause (if) of Sub-section (1), have regard to the nature of such disability and the effect which such disability is likely to have on the capacity of a person subject thereto, or suffering there from, to engage in a gainful employment or occupation.

11D. A permanent physical disability shall be regarded as a permanent physical disability for the purposes of Clause (if) of Sub-section (1) of section SOU if it falls in any one of the 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 (of) permanent and total loss of voice.

8. On proper reading of the aforesaid provision, it is quite clear that relief under Section 80U could be granted to a blind person if he is totally blind. The provisions of Rule 11D are applicable Only in the case of the persons who are subject to or suffer from a permanent physical disability other than blindness. In this view of the matter, it is not possible to accept the stand taken on behalf of the assessee that even in case of a person blind in one eye deduction under Section 80U of the Act would be available. If we were to accept the submission made on behalf of the assessee, we will have to completely ignore the provisions contained in Section 80U of the Act and the rules thereunder. The proviso to Section 80U also makes it clear that on the production of a certificate "to his total blindness from a registered medical practitioner..." is required before an Assessing Officer can accept the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80U of the Act.

In the instant case, the certificate of the Consulting Eye Surgeon (reproduced above) does not mention that the assessee is totally blind.

On the contrary the certificate says that "no visual in the right eye".

In other words, the assessee is not totally blind. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation in upholding the action of the IT authorities.