ITO v. Armine Hamied Khan

By CA Nikhil Gupta · Judgment date: 2022-08-30 · ITAT Mumbai

ITATDismissedPUBLISH_READY

Important disclaimer

Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.

Source status: Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; the exact issuing-court primary record remains pending. Open packaged judgment PDF. This indexed page retains explicit official-source and later-history disclosures for reliance checks.

Case in 2 minutes

S.54F : Capital gains- Investment in a residential house-Non-Resident-Transfer of tenancy rights-Invested in residential flat in proposed building-AO was indeed in error in adopting a hyper-pedantic approach and holding that there was a fresh claim for exemption under section 54F of the Act-Entitle for exemption. [S. 45, 54] The assessee invested the entire sale consideration of the tenancy right in residential house. In the return of income she mentioned the section 54 of the Act. In the course of assessment proceedings she stated that it was inadvertent mistake. The AO rejected the claim. On appeal the CIT(A)…

Result: Dismissed. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.

Case snapshot

Court / TribunalITAT Mumbai

Case numberITA No. 834/Mum/2022 with CO No. 94/Mum/2022

Decision date2022-08-30

Assessment yearAY 2017-18

Coramor two years after the cap

OutcomeDismissed

Sections / provisions: 54F

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

S.54F : Capital gains- Investment in a residential house-Non-Resident-Transfer of tenancy rights-Invested in residential flat in proposed building-AO was indeed in error in adopting a hyper-pedantic approach and holding that there was a fresh claim for exemption under section 54F of the Act-Entitle for exemption. [S. 45, 54] The assessee invested the entire sale consideration of the tenancy right in residential house. In the return of income she mentioned the section 54 of the Act. In the course of assessment proceedings she stated that it was inadvertent mistake. The AO rejected the claim. On appeal the CIT(A)…
What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?

JUDGMENT-GROUNDED CASE RECORD

Material facts and procedural background

ITA No.: 834/Mum/2022 Assessment year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer International Taxation Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai .…………………………Appellant

Armine Hamied Khan ……………...…………Respondent 702, Nisarg, Off Nargis Dutt Road Bandra West, Mumbai 400 050 [PAN: AAOPK4115A] CO No. 94/Mum/2022 Arising out of ITA No.: 834/Mum/2022 Assessment year: 2017-18 Armine Hamied Khan .…………………………Appellant 702, Nisarg, Off Nargis Dutt Road Bandra West, Mumbai 400 050 [PAN: AAOPK4115A]

Appearances by: Soumendu K Dash for the revenue Yogendra N Thakkar and Deepak S Sukhija for the assessee

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of the assessee of deduction under

2. The issue in appeal lies in a very narrow compass of material facts. The assessee before us is a non-resident lady, and it appears that she had tenancy rights in a residential apartment in the posh South Mumbai locality of Warden Road. She surrendered these tenancy rights for a consideration of Rs 4,76,80,552. The funds so received by her, along with an additional amount of Rs 56,80,230, were invested in the purchase of a new residential flat in the upcoming Lower Parel area nearby. There is no dispute about these foundational aspects.

Appellant / assessee submissions

The packaged judgment does not separately label the appellant's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The packaged judgment does not separately label the respondent's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

7. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position.

8. So far as the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Goetz India Ltd (supra) is concerned, that dealt with a fresh claim made in the income tax return, and this claim was made by way of filing a letter, rather than by revising the income tax return. Taking note of this position, Their Lordships had observed that “The return was filed on 30-11-1995 by the appellant for the assessment year in question. On 12-1-1998, the appellant sought to claim a deduction by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer” (emphasis, by underlining, supplied by us). It was in this context that Their Lordships held that such a course of action was impermissible. That is not the case, as learned CIT(A) has rightly appreciated, before us. Here is a case in which a claim for exemption was rightly made, but only a wrong section was quoted while making a claim, which is qualitatively different from was no fresh claim was such. In our considered view, therefore, the Assessing Officer was indeed in error in adopting such a hyper- pedantic approach and in holding that there was a fresh claim for exemption under section 54F. The grievance raised by the Assessing Officer, in this appeal, is,…

Operative decision and relief

11. In the result, the appeal as also cross-objections are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court today on the 30th day of August 2022

Official source and later-history control

Primary record: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_SEARCH_PENDING

Later-history status: RECTIFICATION_HIGH_COURT_APPEAL_SLP_CHECK_PENDING

ITAT rectification, jurisdictional High Court appeal and Supreme Court SLP history remain to be closed.

Release decision: Published with a sanitized local judgment copy and explicit source disclosure; official-primary retrieval and later-history surveillance remain open. Checked 2026-08-11; page is published as index,follow with these limitations disclosed.

FININ2MIN ANALYSIS

Ratio and legal principle

The packaged judgment addresses S.54F : Capital gains- Investment in a residential house-Non-Resident-Transfer of tenancy rights-Invested in residential flat in proposed building-AO was indeed in error in adopting a hyper-pedantic approach and holding that there was a fresh claim for exemption under section 54F of the Act-Entitle for exemption. [S. 45, 54] The assessee invested the entire sale consideration of the tenancy right in residential house. In the return of income she mentioned the section 54 of the Act. In the course of assessment proceedings she stated that it was inadvertent mistake. The AO rejected the claim. On appeal the CIT(A)…. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with s.54f : capital gains- investment in a residential house-non-resident-transfer of tenancy rights-invested in residential flat in proposed building-ao was indeed in error in adopting a hyper-pedantic approach and holding that there was a fresh claim for exemption under section 54f of the act-entitle for exemption. [s. 45, 54] the assessee invested the entire sale consideration of the tenancy right in residential house. in the return of income she mentioned the section 54 of the act. in the course of assessment proceedings she stated that it was inadvertent mistake. the ao rejected the claim. on appeal the cit(a)… Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.

Practitioner action points

Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.

Can I rely on this judgment?

Authority level	ITAT
Source integrity	Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; issuing-court primary pending
Repository release	PUBLISH_READY
Reliance rule	Verify current history and cite the judgment's narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote.

Does this case match your facts?

Stronger match when

The same primary issue is raised.
The same statutory version and jurisdiction apply.
The procedural stage and burden of proof are comparable.
The material documentary record is substantially similar.

Weaker / distinguishable when

A later higher-court ruling changes the position.
The statutory provision or relevant period differs.
The evidence or procedural chronology is materially different.
A defect decisive here was cured in the user's case.

Questions this judgment answers

What was the main dispute in ITO v. Armine Hamied Khan?

Which facts matter most?

ITA No.: 834/Mum/2022 Assessment year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer International Taxation Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai .…………………………Appellant

What did the ITAT Mumbai decide?

11. In the result, the appeal as also cross-objections are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court today on the 30th day of August 2022

What legal principle can be taken from the judgment?

The packaged judgment addresses S.54F : Capital gains- Investment in a residential house-Non-Resident-Transfer of tenancy rights-Invested in residential flat in proposed building-AO was indeed in error in adopting a hyper-pedantic approach and holding that there was a fresh claim for exemption under section 54F of the Act-Entitle for exemption. [S. 45, 54] The assessee invested the entire sale consideration of the tenancy right in residential house. In the return of income she mentioned the section 54 of the Act. In the course of assessment proceedings she stated that it was inadvertent mistake. The AO rejected the claim. On appeal the CIT(A)…. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions. Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.

Which provisions should be checked?

54F

When is the case most useful?

When the user's facts raise the same issue - S.54F : Capital gains- Investment in a residential house-Non-Resident-Transfer of tenancy rights-Invested in residential flat in proposed building-AO was indeed in error in adopting a hyper-pedantic approach and holding that there was a fresh claim for exemption under section 54F of the Act-Entitle for exemption. [S. 45, 54] The assessee invested the entire sale consideration of the tenancy right in residential house. In the return of income she mentioned the section 54 of the Act. In the course of assessment proceedings she stated that it was inadvertent mistake. The AO rejected the claim. On appeal the CIT(A)… - at a comparable procedural stage and under the same statutory version.

What could distinguish the case?

Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.

Can it be cited without another current-law check?

No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate/review/SLP history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.