JUDGMENT
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.
1. The medical certificate produced by the assessee to the effect that his disability was to the extent of 55 per cent. was not doubted by the Commissioner. He nevertheless rejected the petitioner’s petition for relief under Section 80U of the Acton the ground that he was a partner in a firm which curried on trade in vegetables and he had been
assessed to income-tax from the year 1975. In his application the assessee had stated that he was unaware of his right to seek the relief earlier and that he filed the application for the relief, when he became so aware.
2. The Commissioner has proceeded on the basis that if a man has on income despite his disability that itself would be sufficient to show that the disability has not come in the way of his earning an income. That can hardly be the test for deciding the issue as to whether the relief can be granted under Section 80U of the Act. If a man has no income, he is not assessed to tax at all and no question of granting any relief arises. It is only when there is taxable income that, a claim can be made for the relief.
3. There is nothing on record to show that the disability had no impact, whatever on the extent of income that could be earned by the assessee. The object of Section 80U of the Act is to provide relief to the assessees and that relief cannot be withheld on the ground that the person who seeks the relief has an income. The Commissioner has not made the order by applying the relevant criteria. The physical disability not having been disputed, it can be assumed that it had an impact on the extent of income the assessee could earn. The sale of vegetables even in wholesale would require physical movement and such movement causes some difficulty to a person who has disability in one of his limbs. When relief is sought under Section 80U of the Act, in a case where the disability has been proved, there is a duty cast upon the authority to appreciate the nature and extent of the disability and the impact of the disability on the income earning capacity of the individual, having regard to the source of income of the individual and other relevant factors.
4. The impugned order is therefore set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for fresh consideration in accordance with law The writ petition is allowed.