DCIT-CIRCLE-3(3) (1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. S D CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

The assesse has objected the reopening of the assessment vide letter dated 12.02.2013 as under:

The AO has rejected the objection filed by the assessee as under:

After disposing off the assesee's objection for re-opening the assessment, statutory notices u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 25-02-2013 has been issued and served on the assessee. Further notice u/s.142(1) of the Act has also been issued and served on 15-03-2013. In response, Shri Dilip Lakhani, CA & AR, duly authorized by the assessee company, attended the assessment proceedings and furnished the details and explanation called for from time to time.”

The assessing officer has referred the findings of ITO, Ward 25(1)(4) pertaining to the assessment order made in the case of Shri N.J. Thakur for assessment year 2008-09 that Shri N.J. Thakur has shown the amount received from the assesse as sundry creditors in his un- audited balance sheet. After referring the information received the AO stated that assessee has made payment to Shri N.J. Thakur towards professional fees as consultancy charges after deducting TDS for development of project at Samtanagar, however, neither Shri N.J. Thakur nor assessee has submitted any documentary evidences regarding their associations with each other through partnership or through appointment as consultant/agent/any other relationship. The assessing officer of Shri N.J. Thakur stated that amount received from the assessee cannot be considered as professional fees since he has not filed any service tax return and there was no evidence with regard to rendering of services by him to the assesse M/s S.D Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, ITO, Ward 25(1)(4) was of the view that Shri N.J. Thakur was not engaged in any business or professional activities and the amount received from assessee M/s S.D. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. was brought to tax in the hands of Shri N.J. Thakur under the head income from other sources.

The assessing officer has referred the findings of the ITO Ward 25(1)(4) in the case of Shri N.J. Thakur wherein he stated that claim of the assesse S.D. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. that the payment to Shri N.J.

After taking into consideration the above facts the assessing officer observed that there was contradiction between the claimof the assessee and the claim of Sh. N.J. Thakur as the assesse claimed that payment of Rs.311,67,50,000/- was made towards professional fees for development of Samtanagar project whereas Sh. N.J. Thakuar has shown that the amount was shown as advances towards the development of project at Samtanagar. Therefore, the AO held that no deduction out of the same can be allowed either as expenditure or allowed to be capitalised under the head work-in-progress. Accordingly, capital work-in-progress of that project was reduced by the said amount.

Aggrieved, the assesse filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee after referring the decision of coordinate bench of the ITAT, Mumbai vide ITA No. 3738 &

We have heard both the parties, perused material available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The factual matrix of the case which leads to the impugned addition are that the assessee has received a sum of Rs.95 crores from CL. Out of the said amount, the assessee has received a sum of Rs.31,67,50,000 during the financial year relevant to AY 2008-09. The assessee has shown amount received from CL under the head 'current liabilities'. The AO made addition on the ground that amount received from CL is not for the purpose of providing consultancy services, but for some unknown purposes. The AO came to the conclusion based on his own findings. According to the AO, the assessee does not have required experience and expertise in providing consultancy services. The AO further, observed

The AO has made addition on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove providing any consultancy services to CL. The AO further observed that the assessee being a novice man does not have required experience and, therefore, cannot provide consultancy service to a corporate giant like CL. According to the AO, the assessee has failed to provide any evidence to prove existence of consultancy agreement between the company and the assessee and also failed to prove incurring of any expenditure towards consultancy services. Therefore, he opined that the amount received from CL is not for the purposes of providing consultancy services but for some unknown reasons. We do not find any merit in the findings of the AO for the reason that additions cannot be made to any receipts, merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures on the basis of conduct of the assessee. If the AO wants to tax a particular receipt as income of the assessee, then, he should bring on record material evidence to suggest that a particular receipt is taxable within the parameters of the law. If a particular income is not taxable under the Income tax Act, it cannot be taxed on the basis of estoppel or any other equitable doctrine. Therefore, the issue to be decided in the given facts and circumstances of the case is whether amount received from CL is taxable in the hands of the assessee, if so, under what head of income. The AO has taxed the gross receipts received from CL under the head 'Income from other sources'. The AOs findings are based on the theory of probabilities. The AO has not brought out any materials to show that the impugned receipt is income of the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee has filed all evidences to prove amount received from CL is for providing consultancy services. The assessee also filed necessary evidence to prove expenditure incurred in relation to providing consultancy services. The evidences filed by the assessee in the form of appointment letter issued by CL dated 07-02-2007 and further consultancy agreement entered into between the parties on 29-08-2008

Having said so, let us examine whether the assessee is able to prove expenditure incurred in relation to his business activity of providing consultancy services to CL. The assessee claims to have incurred various expenditure in relation to work executed for CL which has been filed before the AO. The assessee further contended that because he is following project completion method for recognising revenue from the work, whatever expenditure incurred for the project has been shown under WIP, pending recognition of revenue. The assessee further contended that during the financial year relevant to AY 2008-09, he has incurred various expenditure which have been debited to P&L account in PRS Developers & PRS Enterprises. The AO has conveniently ignored evidences filed by the assessee to make addition towards gross receipts received from CL.

No doubt, the assessee has proved beyond doubt the impugned receipt from CL is for the purposes of providing consultancy services. The assessee also filed certain evidences to prove various expenditures incurred in relation to consultancy services. Income cannot be earned without incurring any expenditure. Income and expenditure are two faces of a single coin. To earn income, necessary expenditure has to be incurred for providing consultancy services. The assessee has filed his financial statements as per which various expenditures have been incurred. If the AO is not satisfied with the details filed by the assessee to prove the expenditure, the total expenditure incurred for earning income cannot be doubted. It is now well settled that if the AO is making best judgement assessment, he should make an intelligent, well founded estimate. Such estimate must be based on adequate and relevant materials. The mere fact that the material placed by the assessee before the assessing authority is unreliable does not empower those authorities to make an arbitrary order. The power to make assessment on the basis of best judgement is not an arbitrary power. If the AO is not satisfied with the evidence filed by the assessee to prove the expenditure, he should have proceeded to estimate the income from the activity of the assessee on best judgement. In this case, the AO has taxed gross receipts without allowing deductions for expenditure incurred by the assessee. Since there is always nexus between income generated and expenditure incurred, levying tax on gross receipts without allowing any deduction for expenditure is arbitrary. The Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has recognised revenue on project completion method, therefore, if at all the income from the activity of the assessee is to be recognised during the relevant financial year, a P a g e | 15 ITA Nos. 6191 to 6194, 6204 & 6033/Mum/2019 DCIT ,CC-3(3)(1) Vs. M/s S.D. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. reasonable profit may be estimated from the gross receipts. We find merits in the arguments of the assessee for the reason that total receipts cannot be taxed as income of the assessee. The assessee has incurred various expenditures which have been debited to his P&L Account. Though, the assessee claims to have incurred various expenditures, failed to file complete details of expenditures incurred, to the satisfaction of the AO. Under these circumstances, what needs to be done is reasonable estimates of net profit from the business, taking into account the facts & circumstances. In this case, the assessee is in the business of providing consultancy services. In the case of professional and consultancy services, section 44AD provides for taxation of income from profits and gains of profession on presumptive basis. Though, provisions of section 44AD strictly not applicable to the present case, the analogy provided under the said provisions can be taken as basis for determining the profit. In the cases of profession, profit ranging from 10% to 25% is reasonable. Therefore, taking into account overall facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the AO to estimate net profit of 20% on total gross receipts received from CL. We order accordingly.” 3.2.6 Since the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Shri Nilesh J Thakur has found The mount received as consultancy charges by Shri Nilesh J Thakur as genuine, the issue regarding payment to Nilesh Thakur now stands settled The Hon'ble bench has discussed and taken in to cognizance the agreement entered in to between Shri Thakur and the appellant company and has held categorically that the payments made to M/s PRS Developer, prop Nilesh Thakur is for business purposes only Therefore, the action of the AO in reducing the WIP by the amount of payment made to M/S PRS Developers, prop. Nilesh Thakur, namely, Rs.31,67,50,000/-, is hereby reversed and the AO is directed to allow the capitalization of the said amount as WIP of Samta Nagar Project. For the identical reasons, the finance charges disallowance of Rs 2.96 crores in respect of payments made to M/s PRS Developers, prop Nilesh Thakur, is also not sustainable. Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal, the AO is directed to allow the same as well to be capitalized as WIP of Samta Nagar Project. 3.2.7 In view of the above discussion and decision of Hon'ble Juri ictional Tribunal, the action of the AO of reducing the WIP (Inventory) is hereby reversed and the original inventory is restored. The total work in progress for Samta Nagar project is to be computed as shown by the appellant in its books and the same should be allowed to be carried forward. These grounds are allowed.”

During the course of appellate proceedings before us the ld. D.R in respect of reopening of the assessment submitted that assessing officer has not conducted any inquiry in respect of consultancy payment made by the assesse to Shri N.J. Thakur. He further submitted that there was tangible material in the form of letter received from ITO, Ward 25(1)(4) in the case of Shri N.J. Thakur and the case of the assessee was reopened within 4 years. He further mentioned that Shri N.J. Thakur

On the other hand, the ld. Counsel submitted that in the case of Shappoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd. the same letter was received from ITO Ward 25(1)(4) and ITAT has set aside the reopening proceedings.

The ld. D.R on merit relied on the order of assessing officer.

On the other hand, ld. Counsel relied upon the order of CIT(A) and order of ITAT passed in the case of Shri N.J. Thakur vide ITA No. 3738 & 3739/Mum/2013 dated 12.10.2017. 15. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The ld. CIT(A) held that reopening of the assessment as unsustainable after referring the decision of ITAT, Mumbai vide order ITA No. 5765 & 5676/Mum/2013 for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 dated 10.04.2015 in the case of Shappoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd. In this regard, we find that in the case of M/s Shappoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd. certain payment amounting to Rs.43,50,00,000/- were made by M/s Shappoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd. to shri N.J. Thakur proprietor of M/s PRS Developer by way of advances. The amount advanced by M/s Shappoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd. to Shri N.J. Thakur was duly reflected in the audited account under the head advances for land and Shri N.J. Thakur could not perform in terms of appointment letter therefore a suit was filed before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court against Shri N.J. Thakur by M/s Shappoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd. and a decree was passed in favour of P a g e | 17 ITA Nos. 6191 to 6194, 6204 & 6033/Mum/2019 DCIT ,CC-3(3)(1) Vs. M/s S.D. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Shappoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd. by the Hon’ble High Court the facts of the payment were duly mentioned in the suit/plaint filed before the Hon’ble High Court. M/s Shappoorji Pallonji & Co. was having common pool of funds i.e own funds and borrowed funds and at the time of advancing excess funds were available in comparison to advanved money. Therefore, benefit of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Munjal M. Corporation Vs. CIT and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Buyer Ltd. were given wherein it was held that where the capital and profit are more than the interest free funds advanced, then it has to presume that interest free advances were given out of interest free capital available.

During the course of appellate proceedings before us the ld. Counsel submitted paper book stating that during the course of original assessment proceedings a letter dated 07.12.2007 as appointment of M/s PRS Developer was issued vide which Shri N.J. Thakur was appointed as project consultant in respect of development of Samtanagar project consisting of various societies/buildings Kandivali (East) Mumbai in occupation of 2,00,000 sq. meter (approx.) of land, Plot at C.T.S. No. 837 to 840,55,56 consisting of 1784 tenements approximately. The various terms and conditions were mentioned in the letter regarding carrying out negotiation with committee member of the respective societies securing their consent demolishing their existing and dilapidated tenements and structure and to secure their consent for Re-Development project. The extract of the same is reproduced as under:

Further he also referred confirmation letter dated 07.12.2007 received from M/s PRS Developer and also referred copy of consultancy agreement executed with M/s PRS Developer dated 29.03.2008 wherein various terms and conditions of the consultancy agreement was mentioned. The relevant part of the agreement is as under:

We have heard both the parties, perused material available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The factual matrix of the case which leads to the impugned addition are that the assessee has received a sum of Rs.95 crores from CL. Out of the said amount, the assessee has received a sum of Rs.31,67,50,000 during the financial year relevant to AY 2008-09. The assessee has shown amount received from CL under the head 'current liabilities'. The AO made addition on the ground that amount received from CL is not for the purpose of providing consultancy services, but for some unknown purposes. The AO came to the conclusion based on his own findings. According to the AO, the assessee does not have required experience and expertise in providing consultancy services. The AO further, observed that the assessee has not been able to prove providing any kind of services to CL. The assessee also was not able to prove incurring of any expenditure in relation to providing of consultancy services. Therefore, he opined that amount received from CL is not for the purposes of providing consultancy services, but for some unknown reasons. It is the contention of the assessee that he had entered into a formal agreement with CL for providing consultancy services as per which he agreed to provide consultancy services for their project. The assessee further contended that the terms and conditions of the consultancy services has been clearly set out in the agreement dated 29- 08-2008. As per clauses 4(a) to 4(m), the nature of services to be provided has been illustrated. The clause 5 of the agreement clearly says the fees to be payable. All these facts goes to prove an undoubted fact that he had received amount from CL for providing consultancy services. The assessee further contended that the AO has conducted independent enquiry during the course of assessment proceedings by calling for various details from CL for which the company has filed all necessary details and also confirmed to have paid amount to the assessee. The company has deducted tax at source @ 10% on total amount paid. All these facts have been filed before the AO. The AO has conveniently ignored evidences filed to make addition purely on surmises and conjectures without bringing any cogent evidence to prove that the impugned amount is received for other than consultancy services.

The AO has made addition on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove providing any consultancy services to CL. The AO further observed that the assessee being a novice man does not have required experience and, therefore, cannot provide consultancy service to a P a g e | 22 ITA Nos. 6191 to 6194, 6204 & 6033/Mum/2019 DCIT ,CC-3(3)(1) Vs. M/s S.D. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. corporate giant like CL. According to the AO, the assessee has failed to provide any evidence to prove existence of consultancy agreement between the company and the assessee and also failed to prove incurring of any expenditure towards consultancy services. Therefore, he opined that the amount received from CL is not for the purposes of providing consultancy services but for some unknown reasons. We do not find any merit in the findings of the AO for the reason that additions cannot be made to any receipts, merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures on the basis of conduct of the assessee. If the AO wants to tax a particular receipt as income of the assessee, then, he should bring on record material evidence to suggest that a particular receipt is taxable within the parameters of the law. If a particular income is not taxable under the Income tax Act, it cannot be taxed on the basis of estoppel or any other equitable doctrine. Therefore, the issue to be decided in the given facts and circumstances of the case is whether amount received from CL is taxable in the hands of the assessee, if so, under what head of income. The AO has taxed the gross receipts received from CL under the head 'Income from other sources'. The AOs findings are based on the theory of probabilities. The AO has not brought out any materials to show that the impugned receipt is income of the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee has filed all evidences to prove amount received from CL is for providing consultancy services. The assessee also filed necessary evidence to prove expenditure incurred in relation to providing consultancy services. The evidences filed by the assessee in the form of appointment letter issued by CL dated 07-02-2007 and further consultancy agreement entered into between the parties on 29-08-2008 clearly goes to prove the undoubted fact that there existed a service agreement between the parties and that CL has paid consultancy fee. The agreement filed by the assessee has narrated the nature of service to be provided. In fact, CL has accepted before AO during the assessment proceedings that the assessee has provided consultancy services. We further notice that CL also deducted tax at source @ 10% on total payments. All these facts lead to an undoubted conclusion that the AO has made addition merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises without there being any material to show that amount received from CL is income of the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that the AO was incorrect in treating the amount received from CL as income of the assessee under the head 'Income from other sources'.

Having said so, let us examine whether the assessee is able to prove expenditure incurred in relation to his business activity of providing consultancy services to CL. The assessee claims to have incurred various expenditure in relation to work executed for CL which has been filed before the AO. The assessee further contended that because he is following project completion method for recognising revenue from the work, whatever expenditure incurred for the project has been shown under WIP, pending recognition of revenue. The assessee further contended that during the financial year relevant to AY 2008-09, he has incurred various expenditure which have been debited to P&L account in PRS Developers & PRS Enterprises. The AO has conveniently ignored evidences filed by the assessee to make addition towards gross receipts received from CL.

No doubt, the assessee has proved beyond doubt the impugned receipt from CL is for the purposes of providing consultancy services. The assessee also filed certain evidences to prove various expenditures incurred in relation to consultancy services. Income cannot be earned without incurring any expenditure. Income and expenditure are two faces of a single coin. To earn income, necessary expenditure has to be incurred for providing consultancy services. The assessee has filed his financial statements as per which various expenditures have been incurred. If the AO is not satisfied with the details filed by the assessee to prove the expenditure, the total expenditure incurred for earning income cannot be doubted. It is now well settled that if the AO is making best judgement assessment, he should make an intelligent, well founded estimate. Such estimate must be based on adequate and relevant materials. The mere fact that the material placed by the assessee before the assessing authority is unreliable does not empower those authorities to make an arbitrary order. The power to make assessment on the basis of best judgement is not an arbitrary power. If the AO is not satisfied with the evidence filed by the assessee to prove the expenditure, he should have proceeded to estimate the income from the activity of the assessee on best judgement. In this case, the AO has taxed gross receipts without allowing deductions for expenditure incurred by the assessee. Since there is always nexus between income generated and expenditure incurred, levying tax on gross receipts without allowing any deduction for expenditure is arbitrary. The Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has recognised revenue on project completion method, therefore, if at all the income from the activity of the assessee is to be recognised during the relevant financial year, a reasonable profit may be estimated from the gross receipts. We find merits in the arguments of the assessee for the reason that total receipts cannot be taxed as income of the assessee. The assessee has incurred various expenditures which have been debited to his P&L Account. Though, the assessee claims to have incurred various expenditures, failed to file complete details of expenditures incurred, to the satisfaction of the AO. Under these circumstances, what needs to be done is reasonable estimates of net profit from the business, taking into account the facts & circumstances. In this case, the assessee is in the business of providing consultancy services. In the case of professional and consultancy services, section 44AD provides for taxation of income from profits and gains of profession on presumptive basis. Though, provisions of section 44AD strictly not applicable to the present case, the analogy provided under the said provisions can be taken as basis for determining the profit. In the cases of profession, profit ranging from 10% to 25% is reasonable. Therefore, taking into account overall facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the AO to estimate net profit of 20% on total gross receipts received from CL. We order accordingly.”

The Coordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of Sh. N.J. Thakur at para 39 as elaborated supra has considered that Sh. N.J. Thakur has proved beyond doubt that the impugned receipt from the assessee was for the P a g e | 24 ITA Nos. 6191 to 6194, 6204 & 6033/Mum/2019 DCIT ,CC-3(3)(1) Vs. M/s S.D. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. purpose of providing consultancy services. It is also stated that he has also filed financial statements as per which various expenditure have been incurred. In view of the findings as referred above there is nothing before us on hand differ from the issue as decided by the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Shri N.J. Thakur so as to take a different view on this issue, therefore, since, issue on hand being squarely covered, therefore, we don’t find any reason to interfere in the decision of ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, ground no. 2 to 4 of the revenue are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed.

Since, we have adjudicated similar issue on identical facts vide ground no. 1 of the ITA 6033/Mum/2019 therefore applying the finding as mutatis mutandis this ground of appeal is allowed. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the Revenue is allowed.

Since, we have adjudicated similar issue on identical facts vide ground no. 2 to 4 of the ITA 6033/Mum/19 therefore, applying the finding as mutatis mutandis these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed. Therefore, these grounds of appeal of Revenue and dismissed. Ground No. 1 to 3: (Reducing WIP by the Consultancy Payment)

Since, we have adjudicated similar issue on identical facts vide ground no. 2 to 4 of the ITA 6033/Mum/2019 therefore applying the finding as mutatis mutandis these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed. Therefore, these grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. Ground No. 1 to 3: (Reducing WIP by the Consultancy Payment)

Since, we have adjudicated similar issue on identical facts vide ground no. 2 to 4 of the ITA 6033/Mum/2019 therefore applying the finding as mutatis mutandis these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed. Therefore these grounds of appeal of Revenue are dismissed.

The AO has computed disallowance u/s 14A r.w.Rule 8D to the amount of Rs.14851/-. The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the ground of appeal of the assessee since it has not earned any exempt income.

Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. It is undisputed fact that the assesse has not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration. The ld. CIT(A) has referred the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. 91 Taxman.com 154 and the decision in the case of Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (95 taxmann.com 250) wherein held that Section 14A cannot be invoked where no exempt income was earned by the assessee in the relevant assessment year. In view of the above facts and judicial findings we do not find any infirmity in the decision of ld. CIT(A). Therefore, this ground of appeal of revenue is dismissed . P a g e | 26 ITA Nos. 6191 to 6194, 6204 & 6033/Mum/2019 DCIT ,CC-3(3)(1) Vs. M/s S.D. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Ground No. 1 to 3: (Reducing WIP by the Consultancy Payment)

Since, we have adjudicated similar issue on identical facts vide ground no. 2 to 4 of the ITA 6033/Mum/2019 therefore applying the finding as mutatis mutandis these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed. Therefore, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.

Since, we have adjudicated similar issue on identical facts vide ground no. 4 of the ITA No. 6193/Mum/2019, therefore, applying the findings as mutatis mutandis this ground of appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Ground No. 1 & 2: (addition of Notional income of Rs.115,96,021/- on account of notional rent)

The AO found that there was finished properties, however, no demand income was offered to tax on the said unsold flat. The AO made addition of Rs.115,96,021/- on the basis decision of Hon’ble Delhi High

The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition after following the decision of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of M/s Runwal Construction Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 5408 & 5409/Mum/2016 dated 22.02.2018 wherein decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Neha Builder & Pvt. Ltd. is considered wherein held that unsold flats are stock in trade any income derived from the such stocks cannot be termed as income from house properties.

Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. Following the judicial findings referred by the Ld. CIT(A) in his findings we do not find any merit in this ground of appeal of the Revenue. Therefore, this ground of appeal of Revenue is dismissed.

Since, we have adjudicated similar issue on identical facts vide ground no. 2 to 4 of the ITA 6033/Mum/2019 therefore applying the finding as mutatis mutandis these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed. Therefore, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.

Since, we have adjudicated similar issue on identical facts vide ground no. 4 of the ITA No. 6193/Mum/2019, therefore, applying the findings as mutatis mutandis this ground of appeal of Revenue is dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide ITA Nos. 6033/Mum/2019 is partly allowed, ITA No. 6204/Mum/2019 is partly allowed, is dismissed, ITA No. 6193/Mum/2019 is dismissed, ITA No. 6194/Mum/2019 is dismissed ITA No. 6191/Mum/2019 is also dismissed.