Appeal Dismissed: Bronchial Asthma not a Qualifying Disability under Tax Section 80U

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal challenging the denial of relief under section 80U for deduction based on chronic recurrent acute Bronchial Asthma. The Tribunal held that Bronchial Asthma did not qualify as a physical disability under sec. 80U, despite the assessee's arguments supported by doctor certificates and past Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal distinguished previous cases involving different disabilities and environmental factors, ultimately finding that none of the cited cases or circulars supported the claim for relief under sec. 80U due to Bronchial Asthma.

---

---

Issues: Refusal of relief u/s. 80U for deduction due to chronic recurrent acute Bronchial Asthma. Interpretation of physical disability under sec. 80U.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the denial of relief under section 80U, which allows for a deduction from total income for individuals with total blindness or a permanent physical disability substantially reducing their capacity for gainful employment. The assessee claimed relief based on chronic recurrent acute Bronchial Asthma, supported by a doctor's certificate. However, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the claim, stating it did not fall under the provisions of sec. 80U. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) upheld the ITO's decision. The crux of the issue revolved around whether Bronchial Asthma qualified as a physical disability under sec. 80U.

The assessee argued that the Board's circular from 1984 expanded the scope of physical handicaps eligible for exemption under sec. 80U beyond those listed in the 1978 circular. They cited four Tribunal decisions to support their contention that relief u/s. 80U should be granted in this case. However, upon examination, it was noted that the doctor's certificate indicated the assessee had been under treatment for Bronchial Asthma since 1970, predating the relevant assessment year of 1981-82. The Tribunal analyzed the cited cases to distinguish them from the present situation.

The Tribunal discussed the case of Shri Khemraj Jain, suffering from Asthma for 25 years, and highlighted the differences in environmental factors affecting Asthma cases in various locations. Another case involving an IAS officer with hearing impairment was cited, emphasizing the impact on employment prospects, which was not applicable to the present case. The Tribunal also reviewed cases of mental disability and Pulmonary Tuberculosis with Bronchial Asthma, concluding that these precedents did not align with the current scenario. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that none of the cited cases or the Board's circulars supported the assessee's claim for relief under sec. 80U due to Bronchial Asthma, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---