IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 196/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

&

ITA No. 197/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2008-09)

&

ITA No. 198/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2009-10)

&

ITA No. 199/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Ritu Sanjay Toshniwal ACIT 21(3), 206, Casa Grande, Piramal Chambers, Tower- B, Senapati Vs. lalgaug, Mumbai, Marg, Lower Parel, Maharashtra- 400012 Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400013.

PAN/GIR No. AAAPT6005G (Applicant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, CA Revenue by Shri Annavaram Kosuri Sr. AR Date of Hearing 16.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 06.05.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM:

These four appeals filed by the assessee are directed against separate orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] all dated 19.11.2025 for A.Ys. 2007–08 to 2010–11. The impugned appellate orders arise from the respective assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] pursuant to directions of the Tribunal in earlier round of litigation.Since common issues are involved in all the appeals, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

2. Common facts are such that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of export and trading of paper products through proprietary concern M/s Marisa International. For the relevant assessment years, the assessee had claimed deduction on account of foreign agency commission payable to M/s Shore Chem LLC, USA. The original assessments in earlier years were completed under section 143(3) accepting the returned income. Subsequently, based on information received during assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2010–11, the Assessing Officer initiated enquiries through CBDT with the US tax authorities under Article

28 of the DTAA between India and USA.

3. The information received from US authorities indicated that M/s Shore Chem LLC had neither rendered any services to the assessee nor had any income receivable from the assessee. Based on such information, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that the assessee had inflated its expenditure by way of commission payable and accordingly initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147 for earlier years and also made disallowances in A.Y. 2010–11.

4. In the reassessment orders passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147, the Assessing Officer disallowed the foreign commission expenditure on the ground that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of services rendered by the foreign party, failed to furnish supporting invoices, and there existed contradictions regarding the identity of the recipient of commission. The matter travelled to the Tribunal, wherein the Coordinate Bench restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the additional evidences furnished by the assessee.Pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer passed fresh orders under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 for all the years, once again disallowing the commission expenditure on the ground that no new evidence substantiating the genuineness of the transaction was furnished and that the additional evidences were either not credible or were already available during earlier proceedings.

5. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that the commission was paid for business purposes and furnished documents such as agreement with M/s Shore Chem LLC, ledger accounts, bank advices for remittances, email correspondence and affidavit. It was further submitted that the commission pertaining to multiple years aggregating to Rs. 4,94,36,992/- was subsequently written back in A.Y. 2013–14 and offered to tax, and therefore d