Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

M.R. Sikka, Vice President

1. These two appeals, filed by the same assessee, involve a common question for consideration. They are, therefore, disposed of by a common order.

2. The assessee suffers from partial paralysis. In the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82, he claimed relief under Section 80U of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The ITO held that the assessee was employed as a senior medical representative in a reputed concern dealing in pharmaceutical goods and so he does not suffer from a permanent physical disability which has the effect of reducing substantially his capacity to engage in a gainful employment as envisaged under Section 80U. He, therefore, rejected the claim of the assessee for each of the assessment years under consideration. On appeal, the AAC also gave similar reasons and upheld the order of the ITO. Aggrieved by the order of the AAC, the assessee has filed the present appeals.

4. It is not in dispute that the assesses produced the requisite certificate dated 25-9-1980 issued by Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy, before the ITO. This certificate reads as follows :

This is to certify that I have examined Mr. S. Viswanathan. He is having residual paralysis due to post polio. He is physically handicapped. His handicap is due to weakness of both the lower limbs.

Sd./- Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy, B.Sc., M.B.B.S., Regd. No. 15072D. ORTH., F.C.G.P.(I) Thus, the only question for consideration is whether the permanent disability of the assessee has the effect of reducing substantially his capacity to engage in a gainful employment or occupation. Needless to emphasize that paralysis is a serious handicap which certainly affects the efficiency and capacity of a person. The mere fact that the assessee, despite his handicap, is working with a pharmaceutical firm in order to earn his livelihood does not mean that the disability has ceased to be a disability or that the same has not substantially reduced his capacity to work. It goes without saying that if the assessee had not suffered from paralysis, he could have done much better in life. The permanent disability from which he suffers has certainly marred his career and will always stand in his way in improving his lot. Thus, taking a broader view, I am of the opinion that the assessee suffers from a physical disability which has the effect of reducing substantially his capacity to engage in a gainful employment or occupation as contemplated under Section 80U(ii). My view derives support from the CBDT Circular No. 246, dated 20-9-1978 [see Taxmann's Direct Taxes Circulars Vol. 1, 1985 edn., .page 579]. According to this circular of the CBDT, an assesses who is suffering from paralysis of lower limbs is entitled to relief under Section 80U. I, therefore, accept the claim of the assessee for each of the assessment years under consideration.