The Hindu Business Line : Is law tunnel-visioned

THERE are various deductions listed in Chapter VIA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. One such relates to Section 80U of the Act which has undergone several changes over a period of time. This provision deals with physically handicapped and entails a flat deduction of Rs 50,000 subject to various conditions.

During one of his Budget speeches, Nani Palkhivala had observed: "On a perusal of various conditions that an assessee has to follow before claiming the deduction, it would be worthwhile not to claim the deduction at all."

Section 80U also deals with the handicap of blindness and poor vision. The extent of blindness that is required to claim the deduction came up for consideration before the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in Gurbux Singh vs CIT (2005 147 Taxman 423).

Facts, issues

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80U for blindness and did so with a medical certificate in support of his claim. The income-tax officer (ITO) refused the deduction holding that `vision of the assessee' was limited and that he was not totally blind.

The key factual evidence giving rise to the controversy is the certificate of the doctor which states: "This is to certify that Gurbux Singh whose signature is attested below has sympathetic opthalmia of the right eye with a very severe chrioretinal reaction. His vision is limited to hand movement only. His left eye has already be excised. He is a blind person."

On appeal, the assessee remained unsuccessful before the first appellate authority as well as before the Tribunal and, thereafter, the matter reached the tribunal.

What is blindness?

The Allahabad Bench held that the assessee was totally blind and, therefore, entitled to the deduction under Section 80U, as he has followed the required conditions and produced the related evidence in support of the claim. The Tribunal also went through various medical literature on blindness. In Ophthalmology, blindness has been defined thus: "Different definitions and terms for blindness, such as total blindness, economic blindness, legal blindness and social blindness are in vogue in different countries. So much so that 65 definitions of blindness are listed in a World Health Organisation [WHO] publication (1966). In ophthalmology, the term blindness strictly refers to the inability to perceive light (P L Absent)."

In 1972, the WHO proposed a uniform criterion and defined blindness thus: "WHO in 1972 proposed a uniform criterion and defined blindness as `Visual acuity of less than 3/60 (Snellen) or its equivalent'. In order to facilitate the screening of visual acuity by non-specialised persons, in the absence of appropriate vision charts, the WHO in 1973 added the inability to count fingers in day-light at a distance of 3 meters to indicate vision less than 3/60 or its equivalent."

In the new Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Third Edition, 1993, there are various meaning of the word `blind'. With reference to a blind person it means "without sense of sight, make unable to see permanently or temporarily."

Different definitions and terms for blindness, such as total blindness, economic blindness, legal and social blindness are in vogue in different countries. So much so 65 definitions of blindness are listed in WHO publication, 1966. In Ophthalmology, the term `blindness' strictly refers to perceive the light.

The extent of blindness has several medical connotations and not surprisingly, therefore, the attempts to study the definitions.

The Tribunal reasoned that the medical certificate of the doctor was good enough material to substantiate the claim for deduction and it was not anybody's case that the certificate was fictitious.

There is also a reference in the order that neither any court nor the Department has any speciality in ophthalmology to give its own interpretation on such matters. On this basis, the tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee.

Wherever medical certificates are required to be produced in support of a claim, they are viewed with suspicion. This is mainly to prevent misuse of the provisions. There are no two opinions that a claim has to be supported with proper backup material. There have been cases where fake documents and certificates have been produced.

In any scheme of legislation requiring discretion and verification, such aberrations are inevitable. At the same time, one needs to take cognisance of the fact that sensitivities are involved when dealing with issues such as physical disabilities and the deductions thereof.

(The author is a Chennai-based chartered accountant.)

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Gassed out

Eurozone caught in a statistical tizzy

Carried forward indefinitely

A hand as fruitful as the land that feeds us

How far does the new `for' go

Arms of entanglement

Is law tunnel-visioned

Running a business is tougher than chess

Calculus of happiness