CORNERVIEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPEERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. ACIT (TDS) - CPC, GHAZIABAD

ITA 3291/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7300 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIRAMA KARTIKEYAN
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 234E; 200A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C, BENCH M UMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, J M ITA NO.3291/MUM/2018 ITA NO.3295/MUM/2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17 ) ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17 ) ITA NO.3292/MUM/2018 ITA NO.3296/MUM/2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17 ) ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17 ) ITA NO.3293/MUM/2018 ITA NO.3297/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17 ) ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17 ) ITA NO.3294/MUM/2018 ITA NO.3300/MUM/2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17 ) ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17 ) M/S CORNERVIEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD. BUILDING NO.10, 5 TH FLOOR ACME GROUP, SOLITAIRE PARK GURU HARGOVINDJI ROAD ANDHERI (EAST)-400 093 VS. ASST.CIT(TDS)-CPC GHAZIABAD PAN/GIR NO.AAFCC9548R (APPELLANT ) .. RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY RAVIKANT PATHAK REVENUE BY ABHI RAMA KARTIKEYAN DATE OF HEARING 1 6 / 07 /201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16 / 0 7 /201 9 / O R D E R PER BENCH : THIS BUNCH OF 8 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A RE DIRECTED AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMIS SIONER OF ITA NOS.3291 TO 3297 & 3300/MUM/2018 M/S. CORNERVIEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS 2 INCOME TAX APPEAL59, MUMBAI DATED 31/03/2018 FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS (AY) 2016-17. SINCE FACTS AND ISSU ES ARE IDENTICAL, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THESE APPEA LS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED-OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS MORE OR LESS RAISED COMMONS GR OUND OF APPEAL IN ALL APPEALS. FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, GRO UNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN ITA NO. 3291/MUM/2018 ARE REPRODUCED AS U NDER:- 1(A) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-59 [H EREINAFTER REFERRED AS CIT (A)] ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN LEVYING THE FEES OF RS. 65,400/- UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT) { ON DELAY IN FILING FORM 26QB} ON PURCHASE OF EACH FLAT IGNOR ING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD BOUGHT 96 FLATS THROUGH ONE ALLOTMENT LETTER ONLY. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IT HAS BOUGHT 96 FLATS I N PROJECT ACME OZONE, THANE THROUGH ONE ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 29 /10/2015; HENCE, THE LEVY OF FEES U/S 234E OF THE ACT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN LEVIED AND CONFIRMED CONSIDERING THE TRANSACTION AS ONE ONLY. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ACTION OF THE AO CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) I N LEVYING THE FEES U/S 234E OF THE ACT CONSIDERING THE PURCHASE OF 96 FLAT S AS SEPARATE TRANSACTIONS DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. (B) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE LEVY U/S 2 34E OF THE ACT IS MANDATORY IN NATURE. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND AND MODIFY THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY, AS STATED, IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE C ONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE, THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AG REEMENT WITH M/S ACCENT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. FOR PURCHASE OF N INETY SIX FLATS IN THREE BUILDINGS. VIDE ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 29 TH OCTOBER 2015, THE ITA NOS.3291 TO 3297 & 3300/MUM/2018 M/S. CORNERVIEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS 3 DEVELOPER COMPANY ALLOTTED THE FLATS TO THE ASSESSE E FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 100,51,65,650. ON THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT LETTER ITSELF I.E., 29 TH OCTOBER 2015, OUT OF THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.55 CRORE TO 4 CORNERV IEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD THE ASSESSEE THR OUGH CHEQUE AND WHILE MAKING SUCH PAYMENT THE ASSESSEE SIMULTAN EOUSLY DEDUCTED TAX @ 1% UNDER SECTION 194IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT') AMOUNTING TO RS.55 LAKH. THE TDS AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT ON29TH SEPTEMBE R 2016 AND UPON SUCH PAYMENT CHALLANCUM STATEMENTS AS REQUIR ED UNDER SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT WAS GENERATED ON THE VERY SAME DAY IN FORM NO.26QB. WHILE PROCESSING THE TDS STATEMENT UN DER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINDING THAT TDS STATEMENTS WERE NOT FILED WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED UNDER THE STATUTE LEVIED FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF EACH TD S STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY. 4. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE TIME OF HEAR ING SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS COVERED AGA INST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT , MUMBAI C BENCH IN ASSES SEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2016-17 IN BUNCH OF APPEALS, WHERE THE TRIBU NAL UNDER SIMILAR SET OFF FACTS HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE I TSELF HAS FILED ITA NOS.3291 TO 3297 & 3300/MUM/2018 M/S. CORNERVIEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS 4 SEPARATE TDS STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF TAX DEDUCT AT SOURCE RELATING TO EACH FLATS, WHILE PROCESSING SUCH STATEMENTS U/S 200A OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961, THE AO HAS TO LEVY LATE FEE U/S 234E OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 FOR DELAY IN FILING EACH OF SUCH STATEMENT SEP ARATELY. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT THE ISS UE IS COVERED IN FAVOR OF THE REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT IN ASS ESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2016-17 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE CO-ORDINATE B ENCH OF ITAT, MUMBAI C BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, IN BUNCH O F APPEALS FOR AY 2016-17 HAD CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE OF LEV Y OF LATE FEE FOR FILING TDS STATEMENTS IN FORM NO. 26QB AND AFTER CO NSIDERING RELEVANT FACTS HELD THAT THE AO SHALL COMPUTE LATE FEE PRESCRIBED U/S 234E OF THE I.T ACT, 1961 IN RESPECT OF EACH STATEM ENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEPARATELY. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE T RIBUNAL ARE AS UNDER:- 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO APPLIED OUR MIND TO THE DECISI ONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. THERE IS NO DISP UTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES WITH REGARD TO THE PRIMARY FACTS. VIDE ALLO TMENT LETTER DATED 29TH OCTOBER 2015, NINETY SIX FLATS ALONG WITH CAR PARKI NG SPACE WAS ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.100,51 ,64,650, AND ON THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT ITSELF I.E., ON 29TH OCTOBER 2015 , THE ASSESSEE PAID A PART OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION AMOUNTING TO RS.55 C RORE TO THE DEVELOPER / BUILDER AND WHILE MAKING SUCH PAYMENT, THE ASSESSEE IN COMPLIANCE TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 194IA OF THE ACT HAS DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE @ 1%. SINCE THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING T HE TDS STATEMENTS AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT, THE ASSES SING OFFICER WHILE ITA NOS.3291 TO 3297 & 3300/MUM/2018 M/S. CORNERVIEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS 5 PROCESSING THE TDS STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT HAS LEVIED FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REP RESENTATIVE HAS MADE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE US, WHICH CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS U NDER: I) DUE TO PAUCITY OF SPACE IN FORM NO.26QB, ASSESSE E WAS COMPELLED TO DEPOSIT TDS IN SEPARATE CHALLANSCUM-S TATEMENTS INSTEAD OF A SINGLE CHALLAN-CUM-STATEMENT. THEREFOR E, LATE FEE SHOULD BE LEVIED IN RESPECT OF A SINGLE CHALLANCUM STATEMENT; II) PROVISION OF SECTION 194IA OF THE ACT IS NOT AP PLICABLE AS THERE IS NO TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY; III) SINCE FORM NO.26QB IS A CHALLANCUMSTATEMENT WHICH IS GENERATED ON THE VERY DATE OF PAYMENT OF TDS, IT DO ES NOT COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT; AN D IV) THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL WORK LOAD ON THE DEPARTM ENT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE TDS STATEMENTS BEFORE THE DU E DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME BY THE DEDUCTEES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201617. 9. INSOFAR AS ASSESSEES CONTENTION REGARDING APPLI CABILITY OF SECTION 194IA OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACC EPT THE SAME DUE 11 TO FOLLOWING REASONS. UNDISPUTEDLY, AT THE TIME OF MAKING PAYMENT OF RS.55 CRORE TO THE SELLER OF THE FLATS, THE ASSESSE E ITSELF HAS DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE IN COMPLIANCE TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 194IA OF THE ACT. THUS, IT IS PATENT AND OBVIOUS THAT THE ASSESSEE AND THE SELLER OF THE FLATS HAVE TREATED THE TRANSACTION OF SALE O F FLATS AS A TRANSACTION COMING WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 194IA OF THE A CT. IN ANY CASE OF THE MATTER, THE DEDUCTEE HAS NOT EXPRESSED ANY RESERVAT ION WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 194IA OF THE ACT TO TH E SUBJECT TRANSACTION. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE BEING A DEDUCTOR CANNOT PLE AD INAPPLICABILITY OF THE AFORESAID PROVISION. IN FACT, IN OUR VIEW, THE CONTENTION OF INAPPLICABILITY OF SECTION 194IA OF THE ACT IS REDU NDANT AND IS NOT AVAILABLE TO BE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PROCEEDED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194IA OF THE ACT , ALL LEGAL CONSEQUENCES ARISING IN PURSUANCE THERETO WOULD AUT OMATICALLY FOLLOW. AS PER RULE 30A THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE UNDER SE CTION 194IA HAS TO BE DEPOSITED WITHIN THE TIME AND IN THE MANNER PRESCRI BED THEREIN AND IN TERMS OF RULE 31A ASSESSEE HAS TO SUBMIT THE STATEM ENTS OF TDS AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT. IN FACT, A CURSORY LOOK AT FORM NO. 26QB WOULD REVEAL THAT IT REFERS TO RULE 30A AN D 31A OF THE RULES. THE ASSESSEE HAVING DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE NOT ONLY HAS TO DEPOSIT THE TDS AMOUNT TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT, BUT IT HAS TO FILE A STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT WITHIN THE PRESCRIB ED TIME LIMIT. IT IS EVIDENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FOLLOWED THE AFORESA ID PROCEDURE. THE ONLY DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IS, IT HAS NEITHER PAID THE TDS AMOUNT NOR FILED THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 200(3) READ WITH RULE 30A AND 31A WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED THEREIN. THEREFO RE, IN CASE OF ANY DEFAULT IN FILING THE STATEMENT IN TERMS OF SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT, THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 234E WOULD AUTOM ATICALLY GET TRIGGERED AND FEE PRESCRIBED THEREIN HAS TO BE PAID . WHILE PROCESSING THE TDS STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT, THE AS SESSING OFFICER IS ITA NOS.3291 TO 3297 & 3300/MUM/2018 M/S. CORNERVIEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS 6 EMPOWERED TO LEVY FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT , WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 10. THE VALIDITY OF THE PROVISION CONTAINED UNDER S ECTION 234A OF THE ACT CAME UP FOR SCRUTINY BEFORE THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF RASHMIKANT KUNDALIA & ANR. V/S UNION OF INDIA, [ 2015] 373 ITR 268 (BOM). WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE, THE HON'BLE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT NOT ONLY UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT , BUT ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE DELAY IN FURNISHING OF TDS RETURNS/STATEMENTS H AS A CASCADING EFFECT AND LEADS TO AN ADDITIONAL WORK BURDEN UPON THE DEP ARTMENT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD, TO COMPENSATE FOR THE ADDI TIONAL WORK BURDEN FORCED UPON THE DEPARTMENT, THE FEE UNDER SECTION 2 34E OF THE ACT IS CONTEMPLATED WHICH IS NOT PUNITIVE IN NATURE. THE F EE IS A FIXED CHARGE FOR THE EXTRA SERVICE WHICH THE DEPARTMENT HAS TO PROVI DE DUE TO THE LATE FILING OF THE TDS STATEMENT. THE COURT HELD, THE FE E CHARGED UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT IS NOTHING BUT A PRIVILEGE AND A SPECIAL SERVICE TO THE DEDUCTOR ALLOWING HIM TO FILE TDS RETURNS / STA TEMENTS BEYOND THE TIME PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT AND THE RULES. THE COURT HAS HELD THAT ON PAYMENT OF THE FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT, T HE DEDUCTOR IS ALLOWED TO FILE THE TDS RETURNS/STATEMENTS BEYOND THE PRESC RIBED TIME SO THAT IT CAN BE REGULARIZED. THUS, FROM THE AFORESAID DECISI ON OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE F EE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT IS NOTHING BUT A PRIVILEGE OR SPECIAL SERVI CE ALLOWED TO A DEDUCTOR FOR LATE FILING OF THE TDS STATEMENTS. IN FACT, AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND EVEN BEFORE US, IT DOES NOT DISPUTE T HE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS, WHETHER IT SHOULD BE MADE APPLICABLE TO ALL TDS STA TEMENTS OR TO A SINGLE TDS STATEMENT. THUS, VIEWED IN THE AFORESAID PERSPE CTIVE, THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE P ROVISION OF SECTION 194IA OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE DESERVES TO BE R EJECTED. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF BALWANT VITTHA L KADAM V/S SUNIL BABURAO I. KADAM, (SUPRA), THEREFORE, WOULD NOT APP LY. 11. AS REGARDS THE SECOND CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESE NTATIVE THAT SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT, WOULD NOT APPLY TO A STATEMENT I N FORM NO.26QB, AS IT IS A CHALLANCUMSTATEMENT GENERATED ON THE DATE OF PAYMENT ITSELF, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE SAME. NO DOUBT, THE PROVIS ION CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT IT WILL BE APPLICABLE IF THE DEDUCTOR FAILS TO DELIVER THE TDS STATEMENT WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OF THE ACT. WHEREAS, SUBSECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OF THE ACT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT FURNISHI NG OF TDS STATEMENT IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM, MANNER AND TIME APPLIES TO ALL TDS PROVISIONS INCLUDING SECTION 194IA OF THE ACT CONTAINED UNDER CHAPTERXVII. THEREFORE, ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT SINCE THE CHALLAN CUMSTATEMENT IS GENERATED ON A SINGLE DATE, THEREFORE, IT WILL NOT COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT, IS UNACCEPTABLE. THUS , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE TDS STATEMENTS IN FORM NO.26QB ALSO COMES WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT. 12. THE NEXT CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED R EPRESENTATIVE THAT NO ADDITIONAL BURDEN IS CAST ON THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHO RITIES IS ALSO EQUALLY UNACCEPTABLE CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THERE IS A D ELAY IN FILING THE TDS ITA NOS.3291 TO 3297 & 3300/MUM/2018 M/S. CORNERVIEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS 7 STATEMENT IN FORM NO. 26QB. AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF RASHMIKANT KUNDALIA & ANR. (SUPRA) FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE TDS STATEMENT BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME AND FOR REGULARIZING THE SAME, FEE UNDER SECTION 23 4E OF THE ACT HAS TO BE CHARGED AS IT IS IN THE NATURE OF A PRIVILEGE AN D SPECIAL SERVICE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS CONTENTIO N OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO FAILS. 13. NOW, COMING TO THE PRIMARY CONTENTION OF THE LE ARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING T O PURCHASE OF FLATS SHOULD BE TAKEN AS A SINGLE TRANSACTION FOR THE PUR POSE OF FILING THE TDS STATEMENT AND COMPUTING FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF T HE ACT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN SUCH CONTENTION. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 29TH OCTOBER 2015, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED IN PAPER BOOK AND, MORE PARTICULARLY, ANNEXUREB TO THE SAID LETTER RE VEALS THAT THE DETAILS AND DESCRIPTION OF EACH OF THE FLAT ALONG WITH COST THEREOF HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPUTED AND DEPOSITED THE TDS AMOUNT ON THE BASIS OF THE CO ST OF EACH FLAT. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PURCHASES OF ALL THE FLATS IS TO BE TAKEN AS A SINGLE TRANSACTION, THERE FORE, THE LEVY OF FEE PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT IS TO BE R ESTRICTED TO ONE CHALLANCUMSTATEMENT FILED IN FORM NO.26QB, IS UNA CCEPTABLE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS FILED SEPARATE TDS STATEMEN TS IN RESPECT OF THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE RELATING TO THE RESPECTIVE F LATS, WHILE PROCESSING SUCH STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO LEVY FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT TAKING I NTO ACCOUNT THE DELAY IN FILING EACH OF THE STATEMENTS. THAT BEING THE CASE, ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT IS TO BE RES TRICTED TO ONE TRANSACTION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. AT THIS STAGE, IT WI LL BE RELEVANT TO OBSERVE, CLAUSE (C) OF SUBSECTION (1) OF SECTION 200A OF TH E ACT CONTEMPLATES THAT WHILE PROCESSING THE TDS RETURN, FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT SHALL BE COMPUTED. THUS, USE OF WORD SHALL IN THE AFORE SAID PROVISION MAKES IT MANDATORY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O LEVY FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED SEPA RATE TDS STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 26QB , THERE IS NO ERROR ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN COMPUTING FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WHILE PROCESSING SUCH STATEMENTS. 14. AS REGARDS THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AUTHOR IZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT APPEAL AGAINST LEVY OF FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEA LS), WE FIND MERIT IN THE SAME. THEREFORE, TO THAT EXTENT, THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS ACCEPTED. HOWEVER, IT WILL NOT MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE AS LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MER IT. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE DECISION OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE. GROUND S ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND CONSISTENT WITH V IEW TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW T HAT THE LD. ITA NOS.3291 TO 3297 & 3300/MUM/2018 M/S. CORNERVIEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS 8 CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED LATE FEE COMPUTED U/S 234E OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 FOR LATE FILING OF TDS STATEMENTS IN FORM NO. 26QB. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDIN GS OF LD. CIT(A) AND HENCE, WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD ORDER OF THE LD. C IT(A) AND DISMISSED APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AR E DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 16 /07 /2019 SD/- (RAM LAL NEGI) SD/- (G. MANJUNATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 16 /07/2019 THIRUMALESH SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//