IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment year: 2011-12)

Smt. Suman Prakash Utekar vs ACIT-21(3), Mumbai D/801, Gandhar Tower, Near Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel Utkarsh Bldg., Khedgalli, Mumbai-400012 Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025 PAN:AANPU5746 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Paste Respondent by : Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr. DR)

(Virtually appeared)

Date of hearing : 09/04/2026 Date of pronouncement : 16/04/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM):

The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity the “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2011-12, date of order 04.12.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 21(3), Mumbai (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act date of order 24.12.2018.

2. The assessee has taken the following grounds:

 “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] under section 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 against the impugned order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer ['AO']

under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act is bad in law and on facts.

 The Learned Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs. 95,81,356 by treating commission expenditure as unexplained under section 68 of the Act. without appreciating that section 68 has no application to business expenditure duly recorded in the books of account  The Learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the commission expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business and was allowable under section 37(1) of the Act, the payments having been made through account payee cheques after deduction of tax at source under section 194H.

 The Learned Assessing Officer erred in drawing adverse inference merely on the basis of non-response to notices issued under section 133(6), despite complete details of payees being furnished. Such non-response cannot be a ground to disallow genuine expenditure.

 The Learned Assessing Officer erred in making an ad-hoc disallowance of 20% of conveyance and travelling expenses amounting to Rs. 3,32,371, without pointing out any specific defect or non-business use. Such ad-hoc disallowance is unsustainable in law.

 The Learned Assessing Officer further erred in making ad-hoc disallowance of Rs.

1,23,858 being 20% of postage, telephone, printing & stationery. miscellaneous and meeting expenses, without rejecting the books of account or identifying any non-

business expenditure  The Learned Assessing Officer erred in initiating penalty proceedings under sections

271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act, which is premature, unjustified and bad in law, particularly when the quantum additions themselves are unsustainable.

 The appellant does not press the ground relating to disallowance of 15% of vehicle expenses and 10% depreciation, as accepted during assessment proceedings.

 The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter or withdraw any of the above grounds at or before the time of hearing.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was carrying commission business and filing the return on regular basis. During the impugned assessment year the assessee filed the return and declared total income Rs.1,77,10,130/-.

During the assessment proceeding the Ld. AO had made the addition amount to Rs.1,01,64,312/- as disallowance of expenses. During the impugned assessment year the assessee earned commission amount of Rs.4,17,77,051/- and declared net profit Rs.1,68,43,210/- after claiming the expenses related commission payment amount of Rs.2,02,55,098/- and other expenses. The Ld. AO during assessment proceeding had issued notice u/sec. 133(6) re