COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. NARENDRA R OZA,

ITR/117/1987HC GujaratGJHC24011850198708 January 2002Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.A.PUJ2 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the assessee was entitled in law to the relief under Section 80U of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court noted that there was no dispute that the assessee suffered from deafness, to the extent that he could not hear from a distance of 2-3 feet even with a hearing aid. The High Court followed its own ratio in CIT v. Bhagwatiprasad P. Parikh (239 ITR 645), which stated that substantial income alone cannot be the criterion for determining if a disease or disability reduces a person's capacity for gainful employment. Therefore, the assessee's deafness qualified him for the deduction. The question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee. The reference was disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench 'B', referred a question of law to the High Court of Gujarat concerning the assessee's entitlement to relief under Section 80U of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs. 10,000 as a physically handicapped person. The Income Tax Officer disallowed the claim, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) allowed it. The ITAT, relying on its own prior decisions in Anand Prakash Saksena and Bhagwatiprasad P. Parikh, upheld the AAC's order. The High Court was informed that the Bhagwatiprasad P. Parikh case had been appealed to the High Court itself, which had rendered a decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled in law to the relief under section 80U of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee claimed relief under Section 80U, which provides a deduction for physically handicapped persons. The ITAT had previously allowed this claim, relying on its decisions in Anand Prakash Saksena v. I.T.O. and Bhagwatiprasad P. Parikh. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue before the High Court. However, the initial rejection of the claim by the Income Tax Officer indicates the revenue's opposition to the deduction. The High Court's decision in CIT v. Bhagwatiprasad P. Parikh, which was brought to its attention, likely formed the basis of the revenue's stance or the court's reasoning.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80U

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 117 of 1987

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ

============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements?

To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement?

Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free account Sign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →