Court allows deduction under section 80U for lawyer with right eye disability

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a practicing lawyer, allowing the deduction under section 80U of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 due to a permanent disability in the right eye. The court found the denial of the deduction by the Income-tax Officer to be erroneous, quashed the challenged orders, and directed a reassessment in line with the Act. No costs were awarded, and any security amount was to be refunded to the petitioner.

---

---

Issues:
Assessment of income-tax for the assessment year 1979-80, denial of deduction under section 80U of the Income-tax Act, challenge to orders of assessment and appeals based on Circular No. 246 dated September 20, 1978.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a practicing lawyer, filed a return for the assessment year 1979-80 and later revised it to claim a deduction under section 80U of the Income-tax Act due to permanent disability in his right eye. The Income-tax Officer denied the deduction, leading to appeals and a revision petition under section 264 of the Act. The petitioner faced similar denials for the assessment year 1980-81 as well. The petitioner challenged the orders of assessment and appeals based on Circular No. 246 dated September 20, 1978, through a writ petition.

The petitioner argued that the authorities erred in not properly appreciating section 80U of the Income-tax Act and pointed out that deductions were allowed for subsequent years on the same ground. The petitioner sought to dislodge and demolish the adverse orders.

The court, after considering the submissions, referred to Section 80U of the Act, which allows a deduction for individuals with permanent physical disabilities, including blindness. The court noted that the petitioner suffered from a permanent physical disability in the right eye, making him eligible for the deduction under the Act. The court found the orders challenged in the writ petition to be flawed and ruled in favor of the petitioner.

Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the challenged orders, and directed the respondents to assess the petitioner for the relevant assessment years in accordance with the provisions of section 80U of the Act. The court made no order as to costs and instructed any security amount to be refunded to the petitioner after verification.

---