Documentary Evidence is Sufficient for Claim of Income in ITR: Delhi HC Dismisses UPSRTC Writ Petition [Read Order]

The Delhi High Court while dismissing the writ petition filed by Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (‘UPSRTC’) challenging the compensation claim for an accident awarded by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal held that documentary evidence is sufficient for a claim of income in Income Tax Return (ITR).

The UPSRTC and the Claimant-Shri Jitender Kumar Rana, respectively challenged the Award (‘Impugned Award’) passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi ( ‘Tribunal’).

The appellant along with his friends was coming from Allahabad to Delhi in a bus bearing registration no. UP-70DT-0132 (‘Offending Bus’) driven by Shri Ravinder Kumar Dwivedi (‘Driver’) and owned by the UPSRTC- appellant.

It was stated that the driver of the Offending Bus was driving the same at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, when the said Offending Bus reached Mourya Petrol Pump, PS Bichhua, Mainpuri, Eta, Uttar Pradesh, it collided with another Roadways Bus, with the other bus scratching past the Offending Bus. The Claimant was sitting on the window seat behind the driver near the emergency gate. The emergency gate was not properly bolted/fixed.

Based on the evidence, the Tribunal has held that the claimant had been able to prove that the accident had taken place due to the Offending Bus being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and awarded compensation to the Claimant.

It was Challenged that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the Claimant as Rs. 2,31,897/- per annum.  The counsel for the UPSRTC submitted that the claimant has failed to prove that he was working as a typist and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. He submits that apart from producing his Income Tax Returns ( ITRs), the Claimant did not file any other evidence that could prove his actual income/vocation.

Further argued that the ITRs also do not show the source of income of the Claimant and, therefore, the income/vocation of the Claimant was not proved before the Tribunal.

A single bench of Justice Navin Chawla observed that the Claimant was able to prove his claim of working as a typist. Further viewed that the Supreme Court in Kalpanaraj v. T.N. State Transport Corpn. has held that even if the only documentary evidence available in support of the claim of income is an Income Tax Return, it is sufficient and must be given due weightage. In light of the judgement, the Court viewed that the act of the Tribunal placing reliance on the Income Tax Return of the Claimant proximate to the date of the accident to determine his income cannot be faulted. The Court rejected the challenge of the UPSRTC.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates