Itta/279/2014 Of Ganta Vijaya Lakshmi v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO.279 OF 2014 DATED:24.4.2014 Between: Ganta Vijaya Lakshmi … Appellant And The Income Tax OfficerWard – 1(3)Vijayawada … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. NO.279 OF 2014 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against thejudgment and order of the learned Tribunal dt.22.7.2013, in relation toassessment year 2008-2009, on the following suggested question oflaw: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’bleTribunal was right in holding that the assessee/appellant is not entitledto claim deductions under Sections 54B and 54F of the Income TaxAct with regard to the two properties purchased by her in the name ofher two daughters, who are her only successors.” We have heard Sri A.V.A. Krishna Koundinya, learned SeniorCounsel, appearing for the appellant. The learned Senior Counsel submits that his client is entitled tothe benefit under the provisions of Sections 54B and 54F of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. He further submits that the words used in thoseSections should be given liberal interpretation as the property hasbeen purchased in the name of appellant’s daughters who are also herheirs. The intention of the Legislature is to extend the benefit to themembers of the family which includes married daughters who arepossible legal heirs. We are unable to accept the contentions as the language of theaforesaid Sections is very clear that it relates to unmarried daughters. Here the undisputed fact is that the property is purchased in the nameof married daughters. When the Legislature thought it fit to specify the words ‘unmarried daughters’, the Court cannot substitute the words. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugnedjudgment and order in any manner. We therefore dismiss the appeal as no point of law is involved,much less substantial question of law. There will be no order as tocosts. ________________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _______________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 24.4.2014 bnr