We Noticed That The Learned Tribunal On The Above Issue Had Decidedthe Matter Following The Judgment Of This Court In Case Of Late Mir Gulam Alikhan (By Legal R v. Commissioner Of

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH ATHYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 5 OF 2014 DATE: 28.01.2014 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-III,Hyderabad … Appellant And Sri S. Ramesh Goud,Hyderabad. … Respondent This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 5 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 dated 07.09.2012 of the learned Tribunal in relation toassessment year 2007-08 on the following suggested question of law. “In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether theHon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in holding that therespondent – assessee was eligible for the benefit of deduction underSection 54F of the Act though the respondent – assessee has notpurchased the new residential house in the respondent – assessee’sown name as per the provisions of the said Section 54F of the Act?” We have heard Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for theappellant, and gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learnedTribunal. We noticed that the learned Tribunal on the above issue had decidedthe matter following the judgment of this Court in case of Late Mir Gulam AliKhan (by legal representative Mrs. Noor Begum) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax[[1]], Madras High Court in case of CIT vs. Natarajan[[2]]and Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora[[3]]. While applying theaforesaid decisions, the learned Tribunal took the view that the word“assessee” mentioned under Section 54A should have exclusive meaningand definition, meaning thereby, the word “assessee” should be given aliberal construction instead of restrictive construction. Mr. Sarma says that the learned Tribunal has not understood the ratioof the judgment of this Court. We are unable to accept the said contention. The judgment of this Court in Late Mir Gulam Ali Khan (1 supra) clearly laydown as follows: “The word “assessee” in Section 54 must be given a wide andliberal interpretation so as to include his legal heirs also. There is nowarrant for giving too strict an interpretation to the word “assessee”as that would frustrate the object of granting the exemption.” We do not find any reason to interfere with the ratio laid down by thisCourt earlier, as the said judgment is otherwise binding. It appears, thelearned Tribunal, after applying the ratio as above, directed the authoritybelow to verify the factual aspect in this matter. Accordingly, we do not findany element of law to be decided in this case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 28.01.2014ES [1](1987) 165 ITR 228 [2]287 ITR 271 (Mad) [3]042 ITCL 498