In a s.147 reassessment the Assessing Officer has thrown out my s.80U disability deduction along with 80C and 80TTA because I produced nothing during the assessment. Can I still prove it in appeal?
Yes, on this order. The Rajkot Tribunal deleted the whole Chapter VI-A disallowance where the assessee produced LIC premium receipts and notified mutual fund receipts for s.80C, and for s.80U produced a disability certificate issued by the competent medical authority — the assessee also appearing personally before the Tribunal — holding that "such evidence cannot be ignored".
Decided by the ITAT (Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member and Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member (order by Sonjoy Sarma, JM)) on 2026-07-13, reported as ITA No. 634/Rjt/2026 (ITAT Rajkot Bench); Assessment Year 2019-20; heard 22 June 2026. It bears on section 80U, section 80C, section 80TTA, section 69A, section 115BBE, section 147, section 148A(b), section 148A(d), section 148, section 144B, section 115BAC of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Deductions & Disallowances, Reassessment & Reopening, Evidence & Burden of Proof and Cash Credits & Unexplained Money matters.
Section 80U claims are being disallowed in bulk in the current wave of s.148 reassessments of individuals who did not file returns, and the deduction is a flat one — no expenditure has to be proved, only the disability. This order is the clearest recent statement of what discharges the burden: a certificate from the competent medical authority. It also carries s.80C and s.80TTA relief in the same paragraph, which is useful because the three tend to be disallowed together as a block. Two limits. First, the deduction is under the old regime only — s.80U, s.80C and s.80TTA all fall away under s.115BAC, the default from AY 2024-25. Second, the order does not decide which authority is competent, in which form the certificate must be, or what happens when an old certificate has expired: s.80U(2) requires the certificate to be furnished in the prescribed form from the prescribed medical authority, and the second proviso to s.80U(2) stops the deduction for years after the one in which the certificate's stated period expires unless a fresh certificate is obtained. Do not read this order as excusing an expired certificate.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Information from the ITBA system and Insight Portal showed that the assessee, a retired government teacher, had made cash deposits of Rs 2,50,000 and cash withdrawals of Rs 62,33,000 in a Bank of Baroda account in financial year 2018-19, and had filed no return for assessment year 2019-20. Proceedings were begun under s.148A(b); the assessee did not comply with the notices, an order under s.148A(d) followed and a notice under s.148 was issued. In the reassessment the assessee filed a return and explained that the deposits were retirement benefits received on superannuation, furnishing a table of credit entries and bank statements. The Assessing Officer held the explanation insufficient, treated Rs 11,00,000 credited to the account as unexplained money under s.69A taxable under s.115BBE, and disallowed the whole Chapter VI-A claim of Rs 1,99,690 — s.80C Rs 1,22,190, s.80TTA Rs 2,500 and s.80U Rs 75,000 — for want of documentary evidence during the assessment, by an order under s.147 read with s.144B dated 12 March 2024. NFAC gave partial relief on the Chapter VI-A claim by order dated 23 March 2026. Before the Tribunal the assessee produced bank statements showing that the Rs 11,00,000 was an RTGS transfer on 7 August 2018 from his own Axis Bank account to his own Bank of Baroda account, LIC premium receipts of Rs 96,260 and notified mutual fund investment receipts of Rs 25,930 for the s.80C claim, and a disability certificate for the s.80U claim; he also appeared personally before the Tribunal.
The appeal was allowed in full. The s.69A addition of Rs 11,00,000 could not survive because the bank statements established that the amount was merely a transfer between two accounts of the same assessee, so the source stood satisfactorily explained (para 5). On Chapter VI-A the assessee was held entitled to the deductions under s.80C, s.80TTA and s.80U: the LIC premium receipts and notified mutual fund receipts supported the s.80C claim, the s.80TTA claim of Rs 2,500 towards savings bank interest was "found reasonable", and for s.80U the assessee had produced a disability certificate issued by the competent medical authority and had personally appeared before the Tribunal establishing the disability claim, evidence that "cannot be ignored". The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the additions (paras 6 and 7).
The Tribunal treated both limbs as questions of proof that the lower authorities had never engaged with. On s.69A it simply matched the entry to the bank statements and found a same-assessee transfer, which explained the source and left nothing for s.69A to bite on. On Chapter VI-A it went head by head. For s.80C it identified the two components of the claim — LIC premium of Rs 96,260 and notified mutual fund investment of Rs 25,930 — and found the receipts on record. For s.80TTA it made no evidentiary demand beyond finding the amount of savings bank interest reasonable. For s.80U it took the disability certificate issued by the competent medical authority as the operative proof and treated the assessee's personal appearance before the Bench as reinforcing it, concluding that such evidence cannot be ignored. Having found the material on record sufficient on every head, it directed deletion of the whole addition rather than remitting for verification.
Further, with regard to deduction under section 80U of the Act, the assessee has produced disability certificate issued by the competent medical authority and assessee also personally appeared before us establishing the disability claim. Such evidence cannot be ignored.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppYes, on this order. The Rajkot Tribunal deleted the whole Chapter VI-A disallowance where the assessee produced LIC premium receipts and notified mutual fund receipts for s.80C, and for s.80U produced a disability certificate issued by the competent medical authority — the assessee also appearing personally before the Tribunal — holding that "such evidence cannot be ignored". This was decided by the ITAT (Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member and Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member (order by Sonjoy Sarma, JM)) and bears on section 80U, section 80C, section 80TTA, section 69A, section 115BBE, section 147, section 148A(b), section 148A(d), section 148, section 144B, section 115BAC of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No. 634/Rjt/2026 (ITAT Rajkot Bench); Assessment Year 2019-20; heard 22 June 2026. Section 80U claims are being disallowed in bulk in the current wave of s.148 reassessments of individuals who did not file returns, and the deduction is a flat one — no expenditure has to be proved, only the disability. This order is the clearest recent statement of what discharges the burden: a certificate from the competent medical authority. It also carries s.80C and s.80TTA relief in the same paragraph, which is useful because the three tend to be disallowed together as a block. Two limits. First, the deduction is under the old regime only — s.80U, s.80C and s.80TTA all fall away under s.115BAC, the default from AY 2024-25. Second, the order does not decide which authority is competent, in which form the certificate must be, or what happens when an old certificate has expired: s.80U(2) requires the certificate to be furnished in the prescribed form from the prescribed medical authority, and the second proviso to s.80U(2) stops the deduction for years after the one in which the certificate's stated period expires unless a fresh certificate is obtained. Do not read this order as excusing an expired certificate. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Obtain the disability certificate from the competent medical authority in the prescribed form before the appeal is heard; on this order that certificate, without more, carried the s.80U deduction.
Information from the ITBA system and Insight Portal showed that the assessee, a retired government teacher, had made cash deposits of Rs 2,50,000 and cash withdrawals of Rs 62,33,000 in a Bank of Baroda account in financial year 2018-19, and had filed no return for assessment year 2019-20. Proceedings were begun under s.148A(b); the assessee did not comply with the notices, an order under s.148A(d) followed and a notice under s.148 was issued. In the reassessment the assessee filed a return and explained that the deposits were retirement benefits received on superannuation, furnishing a table of credit entries and bank statements. The Assessing Officer held the explanation insufficient, treated Rs 11,00,000 credited to the account as unexplained money under s.69A taxable under s.115BBE, and disallowed the whole Chapter VI-A claim of Rs 1,99,690 — s.80C Rs 1,22,190, s.80TTA Rs 2,500 and s.80U Rs 75,000 — for want of documentary evidence during the assessment, by an order under s.147 read with s.144B dated 12 March 2024. NFAC gave partial relief on the Chapter VI-A claim by order dated 23 March 2026. Before the Tribunal the assessee produced bank statements showing that the Rs 11,00,000 was an RTGS transfer on 7 August 2018 from his own Axis Bank account to his own Bank of Baroda account, LIC premium receipts of Rs 96,260 and notified mutual fund investment receipts of Rs 25,930 for the s.80C claim, and a disability certificate for the s.80U claim; he also appeared personally before the Tribunal. The matter was decided on 2026-07-13 by the ITAT (Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member and Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member (order by Sonjoy Sarma, JM)). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The appeal was allowed in full. The s.69A addition of Rs 11,00,000 could not survive because the bank statements established that the amount was merely a transfer between two accounts of the same assessee, so the source stood satisfactorily explained (para 5). On Chapter VI-A the assessee was held entitled to the deductions under s.80C, s.80TTA and s.80U: the LIC premium receipts and notified mutual fund receipts supported the s.80C claim, the s.80TTA claim of Rs 2,500 towards savings bank interest was "found reasonable", and for s.80U the assessee had produced a disability certificate issued by the competent medical authority and had personally appeared before the Tribunal establishing the disability claim, evidence that "cannot be ignored". The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the additions (paras 6 and 7).
The Tribunal treated both limbs as questions of proof that the lower authorities had never engaged with. On s.69A it simply matched the entry to the bank statements and found a same-assessee transfer, which explained the source and left nothing for s.69A to bite on. On Chapter VI-A it went head by head. For s.80C it identified the two components of the claim — LIC premium of Rs 96,260 and notified mutual fund investment of Rs 25,930 — and found the receipts on record. For s.80TTA it made no evidentiary demand beyond finding the amount of savings bank interest reasonable. For s.80U it took the disability certificate issued by the competent medical authority as the operative proof and treated the assessee's personal appearance before the Bench as reinforcing it, concluding that such evidence cannot be ignored. Having found the material on record sufficient on every head, it directed deletion of the whole addition rather than remitting for verification. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Further, with regard to deduction under section 80U of the Act, the assessee has produced disability certificate issued by the competent medical authority and assessee also personally appeared before us establishing the disability claim. Such evidence cannot be ignored."
It was decided by the ITAT on 2026-07-13 and is reported as ITA No. 634/Rjt/2026 (ITAT Rajkot Bench); Assessment Year 2019-20; heard 22 June 2026. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 80U, section 80C, section 80TTA, section 69A, section 115BBE, section 147, section 148A(b), section 148A(d), section 148, section 144B, section 115BAC, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The appeal was allowed in full. The s.69A addition of Rs 11,00,000 could not survive because the bank statements established that the amount was merely a transfer between two accounts of the same assessee, so the source stood satisfactorily explained (para 5). On Chapter VI-A the assessee was held entitled to the deductions under s.80C, s.80TTA and s.80U: the LIC premium receipts and notified mutual fund receipts supported the s.80C claim, the s.80TTA claim of Rs 2,500 towards savings bank interest was "found reasonable", and for s.80U the assessee had produced a disability certificate issued by the competent medical authority and had personally appeared before the Tribunal establishing the disability claim, evidence that "cannot be ignored". The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the additions (paras 6 and 7). It arises in Deductions & Disallowances, Reassessment & Reopening, Evidence & Burden of Proof and Cash Credits & Unexplained Money matters, on section 80U, section 80C, section 80TTA, section 69A, section 115BBE, section 147, section 148A(b), section 148A(d), section 148, section 144B, section 115BAC of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member and Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member (order by Sonjoy Sarma, JM). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Check the period for which the certificate has been issued, and get a fresh one for any year falling after that period expires — the statute cuts the deduction off, and no decision was cited excusing it. For s.80C put the actual LIC premium receipts and the notified mutual fund investment receipts on record, with the figures adding to the amount claimed; here Rs 96,260 and Rs 25,930 made up the Rs 1,22,190 claimed. For s.80TTA produce the savings bank interest figure; the Tribunal accepted Rs 2,500 as reasonable without further proof. Where the reassessment also carries a s.69A addition, separate the two arguments: here a Rs 11,00,000 credit was deleted simply on bank statements showing an RTGS transfer between the assessee's own accounts. Establish the regime first: from AY 2024-25 s.80U is unavailable under s.115BAC unless Form 10-IEA opting out was filed within the s.139(1) due date.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. A `citedby:` citator search on this order's Indian Kanoon id returns no later decision citing it. A second, differently worded probe - the assessee's name restricted to documents from 13 July 2026 onward, across all courts including the High Courts and the Supreme Court - turned up no judicial treatment either. In particular no appeal under section 260A, and so no High Court reversal, could be traced, and no later Bench was found taking the opposite view. This is a July 2026 order, so the silence reflects its age rather than any doubt about it: a practitioner may cite it as the only direct authority on the point but should not expect it to be treated as settled. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The arithmetic in the order does not reconcile. Paragraph 2 records the Chapter VI-A claim as Rs 1,99,690 (s.80C Rs 1,22,190 + s.80TTA Rs 2,500 + s.80U Rs 75,000, which does add to Rs 1,99,690). Paragraph 3 records that the CIT(A) "restricted the deductions to the extent of Rs.1,74,120/- and relief of Rs.23,070/- has been granted", figures that do not fit each other or the claim. Paragraph 6 then directs "deletion of entire addition of Rs.1,97,190/-", which is Rs 2,500 short of the claim and appears to be a transposition of Rs 1,99,690. A reader should take the relief as being of the whole Chapter VI-A claim, which is what the reasoning says, and not rely on the figure in paragraph 6. The order does not identify the authority that issued the disability certificate, the form it was in, or the percentage of disability, and the entry does not supply any of that. The description of s.80U(2) and its second proviso in this entry is a statement of the statute and was not taken from this order. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was allowed in full. The s.69A addition of Rs 11,00,000 could not survive because the bank statements established that the amount was merely a transfer between two accounts of the same assessee, so the source stood satisfactorily explained (para 5). On Chapter VI-A the assessee was held entitled to the deductions under s.80C, s.80TTA and s.80U: the LIC premium receipts and notified mutual fund receipts supported the s.80C claim, the s.80TTA claim of Rs 2,500 towards savings bank interest was "found reasonable", and for s.80U the assessee had produced a disability certificate issued by the competent medical authority and had personally appeared before the Tribunal establishing the disability claim, evidence that "cannot be ignored". The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the additions (paras 6 and 7).
TaxSphere, “Hirabhai Karshanbhai Solanki v ITO, Rajkot”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/hirabhai-karshanbhai-solanki-v-ito-80u-disability-certificate/ (validity last checked 2026-09-07)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The Assessing Officer is clubbing my minor daughter's entire interest income with mine under s.64(1A), although I never transferred a rupee to her. Is that provision even valid?
My s.148 reassessment started over a political donation but the Assessing Officer has disallowed my 80D and 80DDB for my parents' medical expenses as well. Are those safe?
I meant to stay in the new regime but a wrong Form 10-IE put me back in the old one, and CPC has taxed me under the old regime with no Chapter VI-A deductions because I claimed none in the return. Can I claim them now?
I filed my return under the new regime by default, then filed a revised return within time switching to the old regime and claiming my exemptions and Chapter VI-A deductions. The CPC has processed it under the new regime saying the regime cannot be changed in a revised return. Can it?
