B INDIRAMMA Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P6 order passed by the second respondent, whereby the revision petition filed by him has been rejected, upholding Ext. P3 order passed by the ist respondent, substantially varying and modifying Ext. P1 order passed earlier, wrongly invoking the power under section 154 of the Income tax Act for rectifying the mistake apparent on the face of the record.

(2.) WITH regard to the sequence of events, it is to be noted that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person with substantial extent of disability and was enjoying the benefit of deduction as provided under section 80 U of the Income Tax Act (Act in short ). It is the case of the petitioner that assessment with respect to the year 1992-93 was finalized by the first respondent as per Ext P1 order and the liability fixed on the petitioner was satisfied by him. Subsequently, the Ist respondent issued Ext. P2 notice stating that the matter required to be re-examined, stating that the deduction under Section 80u already allowed in the case of the petitioner was liable to be withdrawn, particularly since the certificate produced by the petitioner did not show that he was having permanent disability of more than 50%, which is cited as a mandatory requirement by virtue of the relevant rule amended with effect from 01. 04. 1992.

(3.) IMMEDIATELY on receipt of Ext P2 notice, the petitioner preferred a petition objecting the same, despite which, the first respondent passed Ext. P3 order denying the benefit of deduction to the petitioner, for the reason that the petitioner did not have the requisite extent of disability of 50% so as to make him eligible to avail the benefit under Sec. 80u of the Act, which in turn was subjected to challenge by filing Ext. P4 revision before the second respondent. Along with the revision petition, the petitioner had also produced Ext P4 (a) Disability certificate, showing that his permanent disability was assessed at '55%' by the Medical Board of the District Hospital, Kollam. However, the second respondent did not choose to accept the said certificate and passed Ext. P6 order confirming Ext. P3 passed by the Ist respondent, observing that the petitioner was not entitled to have the benefit provided under Sec. 80u, which is sought to be interfered with, in the present writ petition.