ITO, Coimbatore V. M.Ramalingam, Coimbatore

ITA 2229/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 222921714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNANJCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: K RAGHUC A
• Keywords: Source of fund
• Section: 54B; 54F; 147

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI ... , . , , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.2229/MDS./2014 ( ! '! / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10 ) & C.O. NO.117/MDS./2014 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD II(2), 63,RACE COURSE ROAD, COIMBTORE 641 018. VS. SHRI M.RAM ALINGAM , 111,OOR GOUNDER THOTTAM, ANNA NAGA, VELLAPPANAICKENPALAYM, CHINNAVEDAMPATTI POST, COIMBATORE 641 006. PAN ANLPR 8229 C ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT/ CROSS OBJECTOR ) #$ % & / APPELLANT BY : MR.P.RADHAKRISHNAN,JCIT D.R '(#$ % & / RESPONDENT BY : MR.K.RAGHU,C.A ) * % +, / DATE OF HEARING : 25.06.2015 -' % +, /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.08.2015 / O R D E R PER A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMM ISSIONER OF ITA NO. 2229/MDS/14 CO NO.117/MDS/14 2 INCOME TAX (A)-I, COIMBATORE DATED 20.06.2014 IN IT A NO.94/13-14 PASSED UNDER SEC.143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 & SE C. 250 OF THE ACT. 2.1 THE REVENUE HAS RAISED SIX GROUNDS IN ITS APPE AL; HOWEVER, THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS E RRED BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME AND THE AMOUNT OF ` 1/- CRORE ADVANCED BY HIM TO SHRI SEETHAPATHY NAIDU ON 13.08.2008 MUST BE THE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF T HE AGRICULTURAL LAND. 2.2 CROSS OBJECTIONS THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SIX GROUNDS IN HIS C.O, HOW EVER, THE CRUXES OF THE ISSUES ARE THAT:- I) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ACTI ON OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN DENYING EXEMPTION U/S.54B OF T HE ACT FOR ` 2,92,140/- WITH REGARD TO INVESTMENTS IN AGRICULTU RAL LAND MADE IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEES SON. II) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ACTI ON OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN DENYING EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF T HE ACT IN ITA NO. 2229/MDS/14 CO NO.117/MDS/14 3 REGARD TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING IN THE LAND PURCHASED AT VALLINGADU BY HOLDING THAT ONLY EXTENSION TO THE E XISTING BUILDING HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT. III) THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LEVYIN G INTEREST U/S.234A & 234C OF THE ACT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON 31.03.2011 U/S.139(4) OF THE ACT ADMITTING INCOM E OF ` 2,79,057/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 61,000/-. SUBSEQUENTLY IT WAS LEARNT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD LAND FOR ` 6,90,00,000/- WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. THEREAFTER, NOT ICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.12.2011 ADMITTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF ` 3,03,07,540/-. FINALLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.143(3) R.W.S 147 O F THE ACT ON 13.02.2013 WHEREIN THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DISALL OWED THE CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION U/S.54B & 54F OF THE ACT AND ADDED A SUM OF ` 1/- CRORE BEING THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO ONE SHRI S EETHAPATHY NAIDU ON 11.08.2008. ITA NO. 2229/MDS/14 CO NO.117/MDS/14 4 REVENUES APPEAL 4.1 ADDITION OF RS.1 CRORE BEING THE AMOUNT PAID BY T HE ASSESSEE TO ONE SHRI SEETHAPATHY NAIDU . THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OF ` 1/- CRORE TO MR.SEETHAPATHY NAIDU ON 13.08.2008. ON QUERY BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE HAD SOLD LA ND FOR ` 6,90,00,000/- AGAINST WHICH HE HAD RECEIVED ADVANCE BY WAY OF CASH ` 1/- CRORE. HE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT SINCE THE PURC HASER OF THE PROPERTY HAD PAID BY DEMAND DRAFT ` 6,90,00,000/- SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE ASSESSEE ON 11.08.2008 IE., ON THE DATE OF THE EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED AND AFTER THE AMOUNT WAS CREDITED TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, ` 1/- CRORE CASH ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM THE PURCHASER OF THE LAND ON THE EARLIER OCCASION WAS RETURNED AF TER WITHDRAWING THE SAME FROM THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. SINCE THE A SSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY PROOF FOR THE AMOUNT OF ` 1/- CRORE CASH ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY, THE LD . ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS IN COME FROM OTHER SOURCES. WHILE DOING SO, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 2229/MDS/14 CO NO.117/MDS/14 5 5. ASSESSEE, ON SALE OF PROPERTY AT VELLAKINAR VIDE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 11 .8.2008 HAS RECEIVED THE PAYMENT IN HIS NAME AND THAT OF HIS SON AND DAUGHTER EQUALLY AND CREDITED THE SALE PROCEEDS OF RS.6,90,00,000/- AS BELOW: SL NO. NAME OF THE ACCOUNT HOLDER BANK ACCOUNT NO. DATE OF CREDIT AMOUNT OF CREDIT (RS.) 1 M.RAMALINGAM TAMILNADU MERCANTILE BANK, DR.NANJAPPA ROAD BRANCH 121100050301 872 4.9.2008 2,30,00,000/- 2 R.PRAKASH (ASSESSEES SON) -DO- 121100710400 162 16.8.2008 2,30,00,000/ 3 R.KALAIARASI (ASSESSEES DAUGHTER) INDIAN BANK, THUDIALUR BRANCH 788610044 30.8.2008 30.8.2008 30.8.2008 90,00,000/- 90,00,000/- 90,00,000/- 2,30,00,000/ AS IS APPARENT FROM THE ABOVE TABLE, THE EARLIEST C REDIT IS ONLY ON 16.8.2008. EXAMINATION OF BANK ACCOUNT JOINTLY HELD BY SHRI.SE ETHAPATHY NAIDU (SELLER OF VELLIANGADU PROPERTY TO THE ASSESSEE ) AND HIS DAUG HTER SMT.SUGANTHINI WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA, PERSONAL BANKING BRANCH, RAM N AGAR, COIMBATORE ( WHERE THE PROCEEDS FROM SALE OF LAND TO ASSESSEE SHRI.M.R AMALINGAM HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED ) REVEALED REMITTANCE OF CASH AMOUNTING T O RS.1,00,00,000/- ON 13.8.2008. SINCE THE EARLIEST CREDIT FOR THE ASSESS EE IS ONLY ON 16.8.2008, TO VERIFY THE SOURCE FOR PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON 13.8.2008, SUMMON U/S.131 WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND A SWORN STAT EMENT RECORDED FROM HIM ON 8.2.2013. WHEN ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE SOURCE FOR THE ABOVE CASH PAYMENT OF RS.1,00,00,000/- MADE ON 13.8.2008, ASSESSEE AGREED TO OFFER THE ABOVE RS.1,00,00,000/- AS HIS INCOME. SUBSEQUEN TLY ASSESSEE APPEARED ON 13.2.2013 AND FILED A LETTER STATING AS BELOW: THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1.00 CRORE PAID TO SHRI.SEETHAPA THY NAIDU ON 13.8.2008 WAS RECEIVED AS CASH ADVANCE FOR SALE OF OUR LAND T O SHRI.KUMARESAN. AFTER CREDIT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS FRORN SHRI.KUMARESAN IN OUR BANK ACCOUNT, THIS RS. 1.00 CRORE WAS WITHDRAWN FROM OUR BANK ACCOUNTS AND THE SAME WAS RETURNED BACK TO SHRI.KUMARESAN. BUT WE DO NOT HAVE ANY PROOF ITA NO. 2229/MDS/14 CO NO.117/MDS/14 6 IT IS SEEN THAT NO PROOF HAS BEEN FURNISHED FOR THE SOURCE OF ABOVE MENTIONED RS.1 ,00,00,000/- HENCE THIS AMOUNT IS BROUGHT TO T AX NOW. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED RS.1,00,00,000/-, INTEREST INCOME C REDITED IN SHRI.M.RAMALINGAMS TAMILNADU MERCANTILE BANK ACCOU NT AMOUNTING TO RS.1,20,534/- IS ALSO BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE INC OME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 4.2 ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) DIRECTED THE LD. A SSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE SAME AS ON-MONEY RECEIVED BY CASH ON 1 1.8.2008 I.E., THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED OF THE PROPE RTY BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 17. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS SEEN FROM TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PARA 5 STATED THAT THE EARLIES T CREDIT TO THE ASSESSEE WAS ON 16.08.2008 FOR THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY AT VELLAKIN AR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO HELD THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 CRORE WAS PAID TO SHRI SEETHAPATHY NAIDU ON 13.08.2008. AS SEEN FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE SALE OF PROPERTY WAS VIDE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 11.08.2008. THE CREDIT I N THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANTS SON WAS ON 16.08.2008 AND IN THE NAME O F HIS DAUGHTER ON 30.08.2008. IN THE PROPERTY TRANSACTION THE CASH AM OUNT [ON-MONEY] IS PAID AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO HELD THIS CASH PAYMENT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. AS SEEN FROM THE D ETAILS THE APPELLANT HAD NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 CRORE ADVANCED BY HIM TO SHRI SEETHAPATHY NAIDU ON 13.08.2008 MUST BE THE ON-MONE Y RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. AS SUBMITTED BY THE AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 CRORE WAS THE ON-MONEY RECEIVED IN C ASH ON 11.08.2008. CONSIDERING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SOLD THE PROPERT Y, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ITA NO. 2229/MDS/14 CO NO.117/MDS/14 7 DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 CRORE AS SA LE CONSIDERATION AND NOT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 4.3 LD. D.R ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, AND ON THE OTHER HAND LD. A.R ARGUED IN SU PPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). 4.4 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSING MATE RIALS ON RECORD, WE ARE ALSO OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AMOUNT OF ` 1/- CRORE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS ADVANCED TO MR.S EETHAPATHY NAIDU ON 13.08.2008 WOULD BE THE ON-MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE SALE OF HIS LAND ON 11.8.2008, SINCE THE REVENUE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INC OME THAT COULD HAVE BEEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVAN T PREVIOUS YEAR. THE ONLY TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE REL EVANT PREVIOUS YEAR WAS SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT MADE ANY FINDING WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER ACTI VITIES OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EARNING INCOME FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE. MOREOVER IT IS A COMMON PRACTICE TO ACCEPT ON-MONEY ON REAL ESTATE T RANSACTIONS. ITA NO. 2229/MDS/14 CO NO.117/MDS/14 8 THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) ON THIS COUNT. CROSS OBJECTIONS. 5.1 GROUND NO.1 DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S.54B OF THE ACT FOR ` 2,92,140/- WITH REGARD TO INVESTMENTS IN AGRICULTUR AL LAND MADE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEES SON. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED DEDUCTION U/S. 54B OF THE ACT FOR ` 2,92,140/- BECAUSE THE INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL L AND WAS NOT MADE IN THE ASSESSEES NAME, BUT MADE IN THE NAME O F HIS SON. BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THAT THE LAND SOLD WAS JOINTLY OWNED BY HIS SON AND HIS DAUGHTER AND T HEREFORE, THEY HAD RECEIVED ` 2,30,00,000/- EACH AGGREGATING TO ` 6,90,00,000/- BEING THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND SOLD . HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT (A) CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT DURING COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY EVID ENCE TO SHOW THAT THE PROPERTY WAS JOINTLY OWNED BY THE APPELLAN T, HIS SON AND HIS DAUGHTER AND THEREFORE, UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO. 2229/MDS/14 CO NO.117/MDS/14 9 5.2 LD. A.R. SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LAND WAS JOINTLY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE, HIS SON AND HIS DAUGHTER AND REFERRED TO THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY ALL THREE OF THEM ON 11.08.2008. THE LD .A.R FURTHER ARGUED BY STATING THAT THE LAND SOLD BELONGED TO TH E ASSESSEES HUF. THE LD.A.R PRODUCED BEFORE US THE SALE DEED EXECUTE D BY ALL THREE OF THEM TO SUPPORT HIS STAND. THE LD. D.R ON THE OTHER HAND ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE. 5.3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSING THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R. THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE LD.A.R IS WELL SUPPORTED BY THE SAL E DEED EXECUTED ON 11.08.2008 BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS CHILDREN. THE RELEVANT PARA FROM THE SALE DEED IS EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR RE FERENCE:- WHEREAS THE ABOVE SAID M.MARUDHAMALAI GOUNDER DIED INTESTATE LEAVING BEHIND HIS SONS M.PALANISAMY, M.KANDASAMY, M.RAMALI NGAM (VENDOR NO.1) AND M.SUBBAIYAN AND DAUGHTER NANJAMMAL AS HIS LEGAL HEIRS TO SUCCEED HIS ESTATE. THE SAID M.KANDASAMY DIED INTE STATE LEAVING BEHIND HIS WIFE S.K.KALAMMAL AND DAUGHTER JEYAPRABHA AS HIS LE GAL HEIRS TO SUCCEED HIS ESTATE. ITA NO. 2229/MDS/14 CO NO.117/MDS/14 10 WHEREAS THE VENDOR NO.1 AND HIS BROTHERS M.PALANI SAMY, M.SUBBAIYAN AND VENDOR NO.1S SISTER NANJAMMAL (DAU GHTER OF LATE MARUTHAMALAI GOUNDER AND WIFE OF P.VENKITUSAMY GOUN DER) AND S.K.KALLAMMAL WIFE OF LAE M.KANDASAMY (WHO IS ALSO A BROTHER OF VENDOR NO.1, WHO DIES INTESTATE) FOR HERSELF AND AS GUARDI AN FOR HER MINOR DAUGHTER K.JEYAPRABHA, HAVE ENTERED INTO A PARTITION IN RESP ECT OF OUR FAMILY PROPERTIES UNDER A REGISTERED PARTITION DEED DOCUMENT NO.6509 DATED 25.10.2007. AS PER THE PARTITION, NORTH-SOUTH ON THE WESTERN SIDE ADMEASURING AO.6.00 OUT OF AC.9.10 UNDER A SCHEDULE WAS ALLOTTED TO M.PALAN ISAMY AND LIKEWISE NORTH-SOUTH ON THE EASTERN SIDE ADMEASURING AC.3.10 OUT OF AC.9.10 UNDER C SCHEDULE WAS ALLOTTED TO VENDOR NO.1. THUS, THE VENDOR NO.1 HAS BECOME ENTITLED TO THE SCHEDULE MENTIONED PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREUNDER, WHEREAS THE VENDORS N O.2 & 3 ARE ENTITLED TO THE UNDER MENTIONED PROPERTIES BY HEIRSHIP. WHEREAS THE VENDORS ARE IN PEACEFUL POSSESSION AN D ENJOYMENT OVER THE UNDER MENTIONED PROPERTY TILL DATE. FROM THE SALE DEED, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE PROPERTY BELONGED TO THE HUF OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE LAND SOLD WAS INHER ITED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ENTIRE MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEES H UF ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROPERTY INHERITED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS FATHERS HUF. SINCE ITA NO. 2229/MDS/14 CO NO.117/MDS/14 11 THE EXISTENCE OF THE HUF CANNOT BE DENIED WHO OWNED THE LAND SOLD, THE ASSESSMENT MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY IS BAD IN LAW. MOREOVER AS PER SECTION 171 OF THE ACT, PARTIAL PARTITION IS NOT RECOGNIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSE SSMENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. HENCE IT IS APPARENT THAT TH E REVENUE HAS ASSESSED THE ASSESSEE AS INDIVIDUAL WRONGLY FOR T HE SALE OF LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEES HUF. THEREFORE WE HEREBY QU ASH THE ORDER OF THE LD.A.O. FURTHER WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE RE VENUE IS AT LIBERTY TO ASSESS THE ASSESSEES HUF SUBJECT TO COMPLYING W ITH PROVISIONS OF LIMITATIONS STIPULATED IN THE ACT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR DECISION IN THIS ORDER ON VARIOUS ISSUES RAISED BY BOTH THE PAR TIES. WE ALSO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WHILE ASSESSING THE ASSESSEES HUF, T HE HUF ASSESSEE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT U/S.54B OF THE ACT FOR ` 2,92,140/- WITH REGARD TO INVESTMENTS IN AGRICULTURAL LAND MADE IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEES SON BECAUSE PROPERTY OF A HUF CAN BE LEG ALLY HELD BY ANY OF THE COPARCENERS OR KARTHA OF THE HUF AND IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEES SON IS ONE OF THE COPARCENER OF THE HUF AND NO PARTITION IN THE HUF HAS TAKEN PLACE. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO. 2229/MDS/14 CO NO.117/MDS/14 12 6.1 GROUND NO.2 DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF T HE ACT IN REGARD TO CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING IN THE LAND PURCHASED AT VALLINGADU BY HOLDING THAT ONLY EXTENSION IN THE EXISTING BUILDIN G HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DENIED THE BENEFIT OF SECTION.54F OF THE ACT TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE IN THE LAND A T VALLINGADU BECAUSE IT WAS REVEALED THAT CONSTRUCTION WAS ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING OLD HOUSE. THE LD. C IT (A) ALSO ENDORSED WITH THE VIEW OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED HIS ORDER. 6.2 AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUE AND THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THERE ARE NO DETAILS BEFORE US WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSTRUCTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARD THE EXTENSION OF THE EX ISTING HOUSE. IF THE NEW ASSET CONSTRUCTED CAN BE CONSTRUED AS A SEP ARATE DWELLING UNIT AND IF THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION-54 F OF THE ACT ARE COMPLIED, THEN THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO TH E BENEFIT OF SECTION-54F OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IF A FRESH ASSE SSMENT IS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES HUF AS OBSERVED BY US I N THE EARLIER ITA NO. 2229/MDS/14 CO NO.117/MDS/14 13 PARAGRAPH OF THIS ORDER, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE THESE ASPECTS AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER AS PER LAW AND MERIT. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT DEDUCTION U/S.54F OF THE A CT CAN BE AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEES HUF EVEN IF THE NEW ASSET IS PURC HASED IN THE NAME OF ANY OF THE COPARCENERS OF THE HUF OR THE KA RTHA OF THE HUF SUBJECT TO THE FULFILLMENT OF THE OTHER RELEVANT PR OVISIONS OF THE ACT. 7.1 GROUND NO.3 - THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ER RED IN LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234A & 234C OF THE ACT. THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234A & 234C OF THE ACT IS CONSEQUENTIAL NATURE AND THEREFORE, DISMISSED AS SUCH. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AS INDICATED H EREINABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 21 ST AUGUST, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( N.R.S.GANESAN ) ( . !' # ) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 21 ST AUGUST, 2015. K S SUNDARAM. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE