Ravi Agrawal v. UOI [2024] 168 taxmann.com 320 / (2025) 475 ITR 455 (SC) Editorial refer: Ravi Agrawal v. UOI (2019) 260 Taxman 352 / 410

S. 80DD : Medical treatment of dependent-Disability-Medical treatment of handicapped dependent-Amendment made by Finance Act, 2022 to section 80DD could not be applied retrospectively to policies taken prior to 2014 as it was not in the interest of disabled persons-Court cannot give retrospective operation to insurance contract which is a commercial contract.[S.80DD(2)(a), Finance Act, 2022, S.21, Art. 32, 142]

Amendment in S. 80DD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by s. 21 of the Finance Act, 2022 provides that on attaining the age of 60 years by an individual subscriber (or on a member of an HUF attaining that age), payment or deposit to the Jeevan Aadhar policy of LIC (a policy intended for the benefit of a dependent disabled person under s. 80DD) can be discontinued and the accumulated monetary benefit utilised. It was urged that the amendment should be given retrospective effect to benefit subscribers who took policies prior to 2014. Held: The plea for retrospective operation cannot be sustained-retrospective effect would defeat the very object of the Jeevan Aadhar policy, which is to secure the disabled dependent after the subscriber’s death; allowing a subscriber to discontinue during his lifetime on attaining 60 would be contrary to the policy’s intent and against the interests of the disabled beneficiary. Moreover, the amendment cannot be given retrospective operation by the Court, particularly as the insurance contract is commercial in nature and subscribers would not have contracted expecting the substratum of the contract to be removed retrospectively. W.e.f. 01-04-2023, amendment held not retrospective. Court also held that Court cannot give retrospective operation to Insurance contract which is a commercial contract. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*