ANAND PRAKASH SAKSENA Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
LAWS(IT)-1982-9-4
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on September 16,1982

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

D.D. Vyas, Judicial Member - (1.) THESE appeals are by the assessee pertaining to the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81. The point in issue in both the appeals is the same. So, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.
(2.) The assessee is an individual. For the previous years, relevant to the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, the assessee filed the returns declaring income of Rs. 12,220 and Rs. 17.860 respectively. In the assessment year 1979-80, a revised return was filed on 30-6-1981 disclosing income of Rs. 7,580. Similarly, for the assessment year 1980-81, a revised return was filed on 30-6-1981 showing income of Rs. 12,515. In both the years under consideration, the assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80U of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The learned ITO was of the view that the case of the assessee is not covered under the CBDT Circular No. 2,46, dated 20-9-1978. So, he disallowed the claim in both the years under consideration.
(3.) THE assessee took up the matter in appeal. Inter alia it was contended that the assessee is an IAS officer and has been in the service since the year 1951 onwards. It was contended that the assessee had become almost deaf whereby he had lost his capacity of hearing and thus unable to attend meetings, to attend telephone calls as also to attend to the Court hearings. Thus, it. was contended that his case comes under Section 80U(ii). THE learned counsel further contended that a certificate was filed in support of the said claim, whereby it was stated that the assessee had been suffering from a permanent physical disability other than blindness as a result of which the capacity to engage in a gainful employment has been substantially lost. According to the learned counsel, this state of affairs is prevailing since the year 1976 or even before it. Thus, it was contended that the finding of the learned ITO that the assessee is not entitled to deduction under Section 80U(ii) is incorrect.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.