HC denies sec. 54F/54B relief to mother for buying properties in name of her married daughters
IT : Assessee is not entitled to sections 54F and 54B relief in respect of properties acquired in name of her married daughters
Refer<  54 taxmann.com 301 (Andhra Pradesh), HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Ganta Vijaya Lakshmi v. Income-tax Officer, Ward -1(3), Vijayawada, KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA, CJ. AND SANJAY KUMAR, J., IT TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO. 279 OF 2014, APRIL 24, 2014>
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ. – This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dt.22.7.2013, in relation to assessment year 2008-2009, on the following suggested question of law:
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee/appellant is not entitled to claim deductions under Sections 54B and 54F of the Income Tax Act with regard to the two properties purchased by her in the name of her two daughters, who are her only successors.”
2. We have heard Sri A.V.A. Krishna Koundinya, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant.
3. The learned Senior Counsel submits that his client is entitled to the benefit under the provisions of Sections 54B and 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He further submits that the words used in those Sections should be given liberal interpretation as the property has been purchased in the name of appellant’s daughters who are also her heirs. The intention of the Legislature is to extend the benefit to the members of the family which includes married daughters who are possible legal heirs.
4. We are unable to accept the contentions as the language of the aforesaid Sections is very clear that it relates to unmarried daughters. Here the undisputed fact is that the property is purchased in the name of 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 impugned judgment and order in any manner.
5. We therefore dismiss the appeal as no point of law is involved, much less substantial question of law. There will be no order as to costs.