Non-resident woman wins appeal for section 54F deduction despite income tax return error.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the Assessing Officer, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to allow the deduction under section 54F for the non-resident lady assessee. The error in quoting the section in the income tax return was deemed not to constitute a fresh claim for exemption, distinguishing it from the Goetz India Ltd case. The Tribunal emphasized that the mistake was bonafide and could be rectified during assessment, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee.

---

---

Issues:
1. Correctness of allowing deduction under section 54F not claimed in the return of income.
2. Compliance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetz India Ltd Vs CIT.

Issue 1: Correctness of Allowing Deduction under Section 54F:
The appeal questions the order by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. The appellant, an Assessing Officer, challenges the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, which was not initially claimed in the income tax return. The assessee, a non-resident lady, had tenancy rights in a residential apartment in South Mumbai and later invested the proceeds in a new residential flat. The dispute arose due to the incorrect mention of section 54 instead of 54F in the income tax return, leading to the rejection of the claim by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the claim, stating that the mistake was bonafide and could be corrected during the assessment itself. The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the error in quoting the section did not constitute a fresh claim for exemption under section 54F. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee.

Issue 2: Compliance with Goetz India Ltd Vs CIT Decision:
The Assessing Officer relied on the Goetz India Ltd Vs CIT case to argue that the claim under section 54F was inadmissible as it was considered a fresh claim during scrutiny assessment proceedings. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) differentiated the present case from the Goetz India Ltd case, highlighting that the mistake in quoting the section was not akin to making a fresh claim. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's interpretation, rejecting the Assessing Officer's hyper-pedantic approach. The Tribunal clarified that a mere error in mentioning the section did not transform the claim into a new one. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Commissioner's decision to allow the deduction under section 54F for the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow the deduction under section 54F for the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the error in quoting the section in the income tax return did not constitute a fresh claim for exemption, thereby rejecting the Assessing Officer's argument based on the Goetz India Ltd case.

---