TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (4) TMI 33
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ahmedabad, vide his order dated December 15, 1998. The facts necessary to be noticed are that for all these assessment years in question, the assessee did not claim the benefit of handicapped assessee before the Income-tax Officer and the assessments were allowed to be completed on that basis. Thereafter, on the expiry of the period of limitation, applications were made in respect of each of the assessment years before the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 264 of the Income-tax Act with applications for condonation of delay to claim the benefit of section 80U in respect of the assessment for the aforesaid assessment years. A certificate of Dr. Prabodh Desai dated January 11, 1997, was produced before the Commissioner stating that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... honorarium for working as a doctor in the Government hospital. The Commissioner of Income-tax further observed that the doctor is attached as an honorary surgeon and has been paid honorarium for the whole year. Had he been working in a Government hospital, he would have been having some designation of the post held by him. An honorary doctor cannot be said to be working with a Government hospital. Thus, considering the two reasons along with the fact that the assessee has not laid any claim before the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax did not find the order of the Assessing Officer to be erroneous which warranted revision of the order. The petitioner challenges the said order. It may be noticed that for the subsequent ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... but as it could not relate to earlier years the Commissioner of Income-tax has rightly not thought it fit to act on the certificate, in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction, particularly when no such claim was made before the Income-tax Officer. The order of the Income-tax Officer as such could not have been held to be erroneous which would warrant exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 264. Having given our careful consideration, we are not impressed by the contentions raised in defence. Having found a good cause and condoned the delay, the fact that the claim has been made at a later stage, by itself, would not be a ground for rejecting the same. Since the insertion of the provision the statute has provided the condit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e requirement of such registered medical practitioner working at the Government hospital or any other set up was not envisaged. The requirement under the amended provision with effect from April 1, 1992, is that the certificate should be by a physician, a surgeon, an oculist or a psychiatrist working in a Government hospital. The term used in the present provision is not that the doctor certifying the permanent physical disability should be employed as a civil surgeon in a Government hospital on a regular salary or on a regular basis. The requirement is only of working in a Government hospital-which is of much wider import than employed in a Government hospital on a regular basis, A surgeon rendering honorary service at a Government hospita....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ysician, a surgeon, an oculist or a psychiatrist, the provision has not empowered the Assessing Officer with the authority to adjudicate upon the correctness of this certificate. Obviously, the Income tax Officer being not supposed to be an expert in the field of medicinal sciences, the matter has been left to be certified by experts in the field and after the amendment the field of choosing such experts has also been limited to those who are working in Government hospitals. Even otherwise, ordinarily, the courts do not trench upon the field of expert opinion which depends on specialised study and special knowledge of the subject. This is not to say that the Assessing Officer, or the courts do not inquire into the genuineness of the certifi....