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

ITA 3542/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5605 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 234E; 200A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NO.3542 TO 3558/M/2018 ITA NO.3725 TO 3737/M/2018 ITA NO.3823 & 3824/M/2018 ITA NO.3738/M/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17 M/S. CORNERVIEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD., BLDG. NO.10, 5 TH FLOOR, ACME GROUP, SOLITAIRE PARK, GURU HARGOVINDJI ROAD, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI 400 093 PAN: AAFCC9548R ACIT (TDS) CPS GHAZIABAD PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAVIKANT PATHAK, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI ARVIND KUMAR, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 20.06.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.06.2019 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ABOVE TITLED APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY TH E ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2018 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER R EFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17. 2. THE COMMON ISSUE RAISED IN ALL THE APPEALS OF TH E ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ORDER OF AO(TDS) THEREBY UPHOLDING THE LEVYING OF FEE U/S 234E OF THE ACT O N DELAY IN FILING THE FORM 26Q ON PURCHASE OF EACH FLAT. ITA NO.3542 TO 3558/M/2018 & ORS. M/S. CORNERVIEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LT D. 2 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS E NGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMEN T. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR U NDER DISPUTE, THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH M/S. AC CENT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. FOR PURCHASE OF NINETY SIX F LATS IN THREE BUILDINGS. VIDE ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 29TH OCTOBER 2015, THE 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 /- CRORES TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH CHEQUE AND WHILE MAKING SUCH P AYMENT THE ASSESSEE SIMULTANEOUSLY DEDUCTED TAX @ 1% UNDER SECTION 194IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE A CT') AMOUNTING TO RS.55 LAKH. THE TDS AMOUNT WAS DEPOSIT ED IN GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT ON 29TH SEPTEMBER 2016 AND UPON SUCH PAYMENT CHALLAN-CUM- STATEMENTS AS REQUIRED UNDER S ECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT WAS GENERATED ON THE VERY SAME DA Y IN FORM NO.26QB. WHILE PROCESSING THE TDS STATEMENT UNDER S ECTION 200A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINDING THAT TDS STATEMENTS WERE NOT FILED WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBE D UNDER THE STATUTE LEVIED FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF EACH TDS STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. CHALLENGI NG THE LEVY OF FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE FILE D APPEALS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 4. BEFORE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT SINCE THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO PURCHASE OF FLATS WAS BY VIRTUE OF A SINGLE ALLOTMENT LETTER, IT SHOULD BE T REATED AS A SINGLE TRANSACTION AND THE LEVY OF FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT ITA NO.3542 TO 3558/M/2018 & ORS. M/S. CORNERVIEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LT D. 3 SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO ONE CHALLAN-CUM- STATEMENT OF TDS WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5. THE LD. A.R. AT THE TIME OF HEARING SUBMITTED BE FORE THE BENCH THAT THE APPEALS INVOLVING IDENTICAL ISSUE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE HAVE BEEN HEARD IN C-BENCH ON 15.05.2019 A ND ORDER IS AWAITED WHICH IS LIKELY TO BE PRONOUNCED AT ANY TIME. THE LD. A.R. THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE F OLLOWED IN THESE APPEALS AS WELL. 6. THE LD. D.R. ALSO APPEARED TO BE FAIRLY AGREED T O THE PROPOSITION OF THE LD. A.R. 7. NOW THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS PR ONOUNCED THE ORDER ON 28.06.2019 IN ITA NO.3285/M/2018 ASSES SMENT YEAR 2016-17 & OTHERS IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE DISMIS SING ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO APPLIED OUR MIND TO THE DECISIONS RELI ED UPON BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE BETW EEN THE PARTIES WITH REGARD TO THE PRIMARY FACTS. VIDE ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 29TH OCTOBER 2015, NINETY SIX FLATS ALONG WITH CAR PARKING SPACE WAS ALLOTTED TO THE AS SESSEE FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.100,51,64,650, AND ON THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT I TSELF I.E., ON 29TH OCTOBER 2015, THE ASSESSEE PAID A PART OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION AMOUNTING TO RS.55 CRORE 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 THE IDS STA TEMENTS AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WH ILE 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 T HE ACT, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS MADE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE US, WHIC H CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER:- I) DUE TO PAUCITY OF SPACE IN FORM NO.26QB, ASSESSEE W AS COMPELLED TO DEPOSIT TDS IN SEPARATE CHALLANS-CUM-STATEMENTS INS TEAD OF A SINGLE CHALLAN-CUM-STATEMENT. THEREFORE, LATE FEE SHOULD B E LEVIED IN RESPECT OF A SINGLE CHALLAN-CUM-STATEMENT; ITA NO.3542 TO 3558/M/2018 & ORS. M/S. CORNERVIEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LT D. 4 II) PROVISION OF SECTION 194IA OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLIC ABLE AS THERE IS NO TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY; III) SINCE FORM NO.26QB IS A CHALLAN-CUM-STATEMENT WHICH IS GENERATED ON THE VERY DATE OF PAYMENT OF TDS, IT DOES NOT COM E WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT; AND IV) THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL WORK LOAD ON THE DEPARTMENT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE TDS STATEMENTS BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME BY THE DEDUCTEES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17. 9. INSOFAR AS ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION REGARDING APPLI CABILITY OF SECTION 194IA OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE SAME DUE TO FOLLOWING REASONS. UNDISPUTEDLY, AT THE TIME OF MAKING PAYMENT OF RS.5 5 CRORE TO THE SELLER OF THE FLATS, THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS DEDUCTED TAX AT SOUR CE 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 T HE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF FLATS AS A TRANSACTION COMING WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 19 4IA OF THE ACT. IN ANY CASE OF THE MATTER, THE DEDUCTEE HAS NOT EXPRESSED ANY RESE RVATION WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 194IA OF THE ACT TO THE SU BJECT TRANSACTION. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE BEING A DEDUCTOR CANNOT PLEAD INAPPLICABIL ITY OF THE AFORESAID PROVISION. IN FACT, IN OUR VIEW, THE CONTENTION OF INAPPLICABILIT Y OF SECTION 194IA OF THE ACT IS REDUNDANT AND IS NOT AVAILABLE TO BE TAKEN BY THE A SSESSEE. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PROCEEDED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194 IA OF THE ACT, ALL LEGAL CONSEQUENCES ARISING IN PURSUANCE THERETO WOULD AUT OMATICALLY FOLLOW. AS PER RULE 30A THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194IA HAS TO BE DEPOSITED WITHIN THE TIME AND IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED THEREIN AND IN TE RMS OF RULE 31A ASSESSEE HAS TO SUBMIT THE STATEMENTS OF TDS AS PROVIDED UNDER SECT ION 200(3) OF THE ACT. IN FACT, A CURSORY LOOK AT FORM NO. 26QB WOULD REVEAL THAT IT REFERS TO RULE 30A AND 31A OF THE RULES. THE ASSESSEE HAVING DEDUCTED TAX AT SOUR CE 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 PRESCRIBED TIM E LIMIT. IT IS EVIDENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FOLLOWED THE AFORESAID 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 TH E TIME PRESCRIBED THEREIN. THEREFORE, IN CASE OF ANY DEFAULT IN FILING THE STA TEMENT IN TERMS OF SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT, THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 234 E WOULD AUTOMATICALLY GET TRIGGERED AND FEE PRESCRIBED THEREIN HAS TO BE PAID . WHILE PROCESSING THE TDS STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO LEVY FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT, WHICH THE A SSESSING 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 JURISDICTIONAL 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 JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT NOT ON LY UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT, BUT ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE DELAY I N FURNISHING OF TDS RETURNS/STATEMENTS HAS A CASCADING EFFECT AND LEADS TO AN ADDITIONAL WORK BURDEN UPON THE DEPARTMENT. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD, T O COMPENSATE FOR THE ADDITIONAL WORK BURDEN FORCED UPON THE DEPARTMENT, THE FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF ITA NO.3542 TO 3558/M/2018 & ORS. M/S. CORNERVIEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LT D. 5 THE ACT IS CONTEMPLATED WHICH IS NOT PUNITIVE IN NA TURE. THE FEE 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 FEE CHARGED UNDE R SECTION 234E OF THE ACT IS NOTHING BUT A PRIVILEGE AND A SPECIAL SERVICE TO TH E DEDUCTOR ALLOWING HIM TO FILE TDS RETURNS / STATEMENTS BEYOND THE TIME PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT AND THE RULES. THE COURT HAS HELD THAT ON PAYMENT OF THE FEE UNDER SEC TION 234E OF THE ACT, THE DEDUCTOR IS ALLOWED TO FILE THE TDS RETURNS/STATEME NTS BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME SO THAT IT CAN BE REGULARIZED. THUS, FROM THE AFORE SAID DECISION 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 SERVICE 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 THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 234E OF TH E ACT. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS, WHETHER IT SHOULD BE MADE APPLICABLE T O ALL TDS STATEMENTS OR TO A SINGLE TDS STATEMENT. THUS, VIEWED IN THE AFORESAID PERSPECTIVE, THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE PROV ISION OF SECTION 194IA OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF BALWANT VITTHAL KADAM V/S SUNI! BA BURAO I. KADAM, (SUPRA), THEREFORE, WOULD NOT APPLY. 11. AS REGARDS THE SECOND CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT, WOULD NOT APPLY TO A STA TEMENT IN FORM NO.26QB, AS IT IS A CHALLAN-CUM-STATEMENT GENERATED ON THE DATE OF PAYM ENT ITSELF, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE SAME. NO DOUBT, THE PROVISION CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT IT WILL BE APPLICABLE IF THE DE DUCTOR FAILS TO DELIVER THE TDS STATEMENT WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OF THE ACT. WHEREAS, SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OF THE ACT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT FURNISHING OF TDS STATEMENT IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM, MANNER AND TI ME APPLIES TO ALL TDS PROVISIONS INCLUDING SECTION 194IA OF THE ACT CONTA INED UNDER CHAPTER-XVII. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE'S CLAIM THAT SINCE THE CHALLAN- CUM-STATEMENT 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 AUTHORISED 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 STATEMENT IN FORM NO. 26QB. AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONA L 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 RE GULARIZING THE SAME, FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT HAS TO BE CHARGED AS IT IS IN THE NATURE OF A PRIVILEGE AND SPECIAL SERVICE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSES. THEREFORE , THIS CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO FAILS. 13. NOW, COMING TO THE PRIMARY CONTENTION OF THE LE ARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING T O PURCHASE OF FLATS SHOULD BE TAKEN AS A SINGLE TRANSACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF FI LING THE IDS STATEMENT AND COMPUTING FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN SUCH CONTENTION. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ALLOTMENT LETTER DA TED 29TH OCTOBER 2015, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED IN PAPER BOOK AND, MORE PARTICULARL Y, ANNEXURE-B TO THE SAID LETTER ITA NO.3542 TO 3558/M/2018 & ORS. M/S. CORNERVIEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LT D. 6 REVEALS 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 PURCHASE S OF ALL THE FLATS IS TO BE TAKEN AS A SINGLE TRANSACTION, THEREFORE, THE LEVY OF FEE PR ESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT IS TO BE RESTRICTED TO ONE CHALLAN-CUM-STATEMEN T FILED IN FORM NO.26QB, IS UNACCEPTABLE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS FILED SE PARATE TDS STATEMENTS IN RESPECT OF THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE RELATING TO T HE RESPECTIVE FLATS, WHILE PROCESSING SUCH STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 200A OF TH E ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO LEVY FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT TAKING IN TO ACCOUNT THE DELAY IN FILING EACH OF THE STATEMENTS. THAT BEING THE CASE, ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT IS TO BE RESTRICTED TO ONE TRANSACTION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. AT THIS STAGE, IT WILL BE RELEVANT TO OBSERVE, CLAUSE (C) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 200A OF THE ACT CONTEMPLATES THAT WHILE PROCESSING THE T DS RETURN, FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT SHALL BE COMPUTED. THUS, USE OF WOR D 'SHALL' IN THE AFORESAID PROVISION MAKES IT MANDATORY ON THE PART OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO LEVY FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FI LED SEPARATE 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 SECTIO N 234E OF THE ACT WHILE PROCESSING SUCH STATEMENTS. 14. AS REGARDS THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AUTHOR ISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT APPEAL AGAINST LEVY OF FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT I S MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), WE FIND MERIT IN THE SAME. THEREFORE, TO THAT EXTENT, THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION IS ACCEPTED. HOWEVER, IT WILL NOT MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE AS LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS DECIDED THE ISSU E ON MERIT. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE DECISION OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE. GROUNDS ARE DI SMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 8. THE FACTS OF THE APPEALS BEFORE US ARE IDENTICAL TO ONES AS DECIDED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AS STATED HEREINABOVE. WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE DISMISS ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE BY UPHOLDING THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A). ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.06.2019. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 28.06.2019. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. ITA NO.3542 TO 3558/M/2018 & ORS. M/S. CORNERVIEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LT D. 7 COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY /ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.