Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Bajaj International Realty Private ... vs Dcit-1(2)1, Mumbai on 12 March, 2026
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH "B" MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
AND
MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER)
ITA No. 5320/MUM/2025
Assessment Year: 2018-19
Bajaj International Realty Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner of Income-
106-107, Bajaj Bhawan, 226, tax (Appeals)
Nariman Point, Vs. DCIT-1(2)(1),
Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400021
PAN NO. AAECB 3060 C
Appellant Respondent
Assessee by : Mr. Kirit Kamdar
Revenue by : Mr. Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. DR
Date of He aring : 18/02/2026
Date of pronouncement : 12/03/2026
ORDER
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 10.06.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short 'the Ld. CIT(A)'] for assessment year 2018-19, raising following grounds:
1. Addition made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') (Rs. 20,52,866/-) Bajaj International Realty Pvt. Ltd. 2 ITA No. 5320/MUM/2025 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (hereinafter referred as 'Ld. CIT(A)') erred in upholding the receipt of loan from M/s. Aneri Fincap Limited aggregating to Rs.20,00,000/ as "unexplained money" and taxing Rs.20,00,000/- ng an amount of Rs.
20,52,866/- under section 69A of the Act.
1.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition under section 69A when the assessee was not found to be the owner of any unexplained money which has not been recorded in the books of account.
1.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in overlooking that in the statement on oath given by Mr. Rajesh Mehta, he has stated that the accommodation entries were provided by him on persuasion of Mr. Urvil Jani to OneWorld group entities and to the Pittie Group, and nowhere has he quoted the name of the appellant, nor is the appellant related to any of the entities quoted by him.
circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. 1.4 On the facts and circumstances CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Ld. Assessing Officer ['Ld. AO'] has disregarded all the relevant evidence including the details of all bank accounts, ledger copy of Aneri Fincorp Limited, bank statements highlighting highlighting the receipt and repayment of loan and interest and financial statements of Aneri Fincorp Ltd filed with Registrar, without bringing on record any substantial contrary piece of evidence.
1.5 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the th Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Ld. AO had neither independently applied his mind to the information received from the Investigation Wing; nor he conducted his own inquiry to record reasons as to on what basis and material, he came to concl conclusion that the appellant was indeed involved into accommodation entries.
1.6 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that no opportunity was given to the appellant to cross-examine cross Mr. Rajesh Mehta leading to gross violation of principle of natural justice.
2. Unwarranted addition under section 69C of the Act [Rs. 11,085/ 11,085/-] 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs.11,085/- under section 69C as unexplained expenditure.
Bajaj International Realty Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA No. 5320/MUM/2025 2.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO relying without any corroborative on the statement of Mr. Rajesh Mehta and without evidence whatsoever to foist on the assessee the alleged commission calculated at Rs. 11,085/-.
11,085/ 2.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is grossly unjustified in confirming the addition of Rs.11,085/- which is based purely on conjecture and surmises.
2.4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the appellant had not incurred any expenditure in the nature of commission and there was no question of treating it as unexplained and confirming the disallowance.
3. Disallowance of interest under section 37 of the Act [Rs. 43,940/-] 43,940/ 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance disallowance of the actual interest 43,940/- to Aneri Fincap Limited as expenses not for paid of Rs. 43,940/ business purpose.
3.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance solely on the ground non genuine consequently the interest paid on that since the loan is non-genuine bogus loan is not allowable under section 37 of the Act.
The appellant reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of app appeal, to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2018 declaring Nil income under the normal provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and book Income-tax profit of ₹2,31,37,524/ 2,31,37,524/- under section 115JB of the Act.
Act The assessment under section 143(3) was comple ted on 20.02.2021 completed assessing total income at ₹2,60,29,692/-.
Bajaj International Realty Pvt. Ltd. 4 ITA No. 5320/MUM/2025 2.1 Subsequently, based on information flagged on the Insight Portal indicating that the assessee had received a loan of ₹20,52,866/- from M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd., an entity allegedly controlled by Shri Rajesh G. Mehta and engaged in providing accommodation entries, proceedings under the amended provisions of section 148 were initiated. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act on 19.03.2022 and after considering the e assessee issued order u/s 148A(d) of the Act submission of the followed by a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 07.04.2022. The reassessment was completed by the Assessing Officer on 18.03.2024 by way of making following additions:
(i) Addition of Rs.20,52,866/-
Rs.20,52,866/ u/s 69A of the Act treating loan from M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd. as unexplained money ;
(ii) Addition of Rs.11,085/-
Rs.11,085/ u/s 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure towards commission for accommodation entry ; and
(iii) disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.43,940/-
Rs.43,940/ u/s 37 of the Act.
3. 2.2 On further appeal, the assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings as well as addition on the merit but could not succeed. The Ld. CIT(A) CIT(A) sustained the additions, holding that the "facade of legitimacy" created by banking channels and ROC filings could not override the direct admission by the lender's Bajaj International Realty Pvt. Ltd. 5 ITA No. 5320/MUM/2025 controller regarding the bogus nature of the entity. The relevant finding of ld CIT(A) is s reproduced as under:
"5.3.
5.3. Discussion and Findings I have carefully considered the assessment order, the submissions of the Appellant, the documents on record, and the judicial pronouncements cited.
20,52,866/ under Section 69A Re: Ground No. 1 Addition of 20,52,866/-
The crux of the matter is the genuineness of the loan allegedly received from M/s Aneri Fincap Limited. The AO has treated this sum as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act based on specific information that M/s Aneri Fincap Limited, controll controlled by Shri Rajesh G Mehta, was a paper company engaged in providing accommodation entries.
The Appellant's contention that the transaction was genuine, supported by bank entries, confirmations, and ROC documents, needs to be examined in the context of the modus operandi of accommodation entry providers. It is a common practice for such entities to use banking channels and maintain basic documentation to create a facade of legitimacy. However, the true nature of such transactions is revealed through deeper iinvestigation.
In this case, the AO has relied on findings from a search action conducted on the "Oneworld Group" wherein Shri Rajesh G. Mehta, in a statement recorded on oath, admitted to controlling various entities, including M/s Aneri Fincap Limited. He specifically stated that these entities exist on paper and are used for providing accommodation entries without any real business being carried out. The AO's order quotes Shri Mehta: "Sir, there is no business carried-
carried out in these companies. The companies exits on paper and are used by several persons to generate bogus value and bogus purchases. I get a commission in the range of 54 paise per 100 Rs. transaction...".
The Appellant's argument that Shri Mehta did not specifically name accurate in spirit. Shri Mehta identified M/s them is not entirely accurate Aneri Fincap Ltd. as one of his paper companies providing accommodation entries. The information available with the department (flagged on Insight Portal) specifically links the Appellant to a transaction of 20,52,866/-
20,5 with this very entity, M/s Aneri Fincap Limited, terming it as a "Bogus Loan". The AO noted that while the assessee claimed a loan of 20,00,000/-, 20,00,000/ the information suggested a transaction of 20,52,866/-.
20,52,866/ This discrepancy itself raises questions.
Bajaj International Realty Pvt. Ltd. 6 ITA No. 5320/MUM/2025 Regarding arding the non-provision non examination of Shri Rajesh G. of cross-examination Mehta, while the principles of natural justice are paramount, their application depends on the facts of each case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE did hold that not allowing cross-examination cross examination is a serious flaw. However, it is also settled law that statements recorded during survey/search operations have significant evidentiary value. The AO has relied not just on a simple statement but on an admission by Shri Mehta Meht about the very nature of M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd., which was part of a larger investigation into accommodation entries. Shri Mehta clearly identified M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd as one of the companies he controlled for providing accommodation entries. The AO has explicitly stated that "Shri Rajesh G Mehta also confirmed on oath that there is no business carried out in these concerns, they exist on paper and are used for providing accommodation entries". This is a direct admission regarding the lender company used by the assessee. The documents furnished by the assessee, such as bank statements and confirmations, are not sufficient to discharge the onus in the face of such direct adverse evidence regarding the source. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. P. Mohanakala Mohanaka (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) observed that the documentation surrounding a transaction does not by itself establish its genuineness if the surrounding circumstances indicate otherwise.
The reliance on CIT Vs. M/s. Odeon Builders Private Limited is hable as in that case, the AO had not independently distinguishable subjected the third-party third party information to further verification. Here, the information regarding M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd. comes from a detailed investigation and a direct admission by its controller. The AO concluded ncluded that the assessee's documents were "the minimal documents prepared in order to legitimize the bogus transactions claimed".
The argument of "full and true disclosure" during the original assessment does not prevent the AO from reopening the assessment assessme if income has escaped assessment due to reasons that came to light subsequently, such as the specific investigation into M/s Aneri Fincap Limited providing accommodation entries. The information about M/s Aneri Fincap Limited being a paper concern controlled contr by Shri Rajesh G. Mehta for providing accommodation entries constitutes tangible material that came to the AO's notice subsequent to the original assessment.
The initial onus is on the assessee to establish the identity and lender and the genuineness of the creditworthiness of the lender transaction. While identity might be established through ROC documents, creditworthiness and genuineness are critically Bajaj International Realty Pvt. Ltd. 7 ITA No. 5320/MUM/2025 undermined when the lender entity is shown to be a paper company involved in providing accommodation entries, entries, based on the sworn testimony of its own controller. The repayment of the loan, even if true, does not automatically make a sham transaction genuine, as such routing of funds is often part of the accommodation entry mechanism.
Given the specific admi admission ssion by Shri Rajesh G. Mehta regarding M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd.'s involvement in providing accommodation entries and its lack of genuine business, the AO was justified in concluding that the explanation offered by the assessee regarding the source of the fun ds was not satisfactory. The amount of funds 20,52,866/- received from such an entity, which is specifically identified as providing bogus entries, is rightly treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. The findings of the AO are based on cogent m material aterial and a reasoned analysis of the facts and the statement of Shri Rajesh G. Mehta.
Therefore, the addition of 20,52,866/-
20,52,866/ under Section 69A is upheld.
Re: Ground No. 2 - Addition of 11,085/- under Section 69C allegedly paid by the This addition represents the commission allegedly Appellant for availing the accommodation entry. Shri Rajesh G. Mehta, in his statement, admitted to receiving a commission for providing such entries, specifying a rate of "54 paise for every 100 rupees transaction". Once the principal transaction of 20,52,866/-
20,52,866/ is held to be an accommodation entry, the payment of commission is a natural corollary. Such commissions are invariably paid off-books off and would not be routed through regular accounts. The AO's estimation of commission at 0.54% (54 (54 paise per 100) on 11,085/ (20,52,866 * 0.0054), is based 20,52,866/-,, amounting to 11,085/-
directly on Shri Mehta's admission. It is a reasonable inference drawn from the finding that the main transaction was bogus. The source of this expenditure remains unexp unexplained.
The Appellant's argument that the AO used "would have been paid"
does not negate the addition. The AO, based on the evidence of Shri Mehta's modus operandi and standard commission rate, has concluded that such an expense was incurred. In matters of unexplained expenditure for illicit transactions, direct proof of payment is often difficult to obtain. The preponderance of probabilities points to such a payment.
Hence, the addition of 11,085/-
11,085/ under Section 69C is upheld.
Bajaj International Realty Pvt. Ltd. 8 ITA No. 5320/MUM/2025 nce of Interest of 43,940/-
Re: Ground No. 3 - Disallowance 43,940/ under Section 37 The disallowance of interest expenditure of 43,940/-
43,940/ claimed on the loan from M/s Aneri Fincap Limited is a direct consequence of the finding that the loan itself was not a genuine transaction but an accommodation on entry. If the principal amount is treated as unexplained money under Section 69A, any interest paid on such a genuine loan cannot be considered as expenditure incurred for non-genuine the purpose of business under Section 37 of the Act. The primary condition forr allowance under Section 37 is that the expenditure must be laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business. Interest on a bogus loan does not meet this criterion.
43,940/- under Section 37 is also Therefore, the disallowance of 43,940/ upheld.
In conclusion, the submissions of the Appellant have been carefully considered. However, in light of the detailed investigation findings in the case of M/s Aneri Fincap Limited and the specific admission by Shri Rajesh G. Mehta regarding its operations as an accommodation entry provider, the explanations and documents provided by the Appellant do not sufficiently establish the genuineness of the loan transaction. The AO has provided a reasoned basis for the additions made. The case laws cited by the nt are distinguishable on the facts and circumstances as appellant discussed above. The AO's reliance on the statement of Shri Rajesh Mehta, who controlled M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd., is a critical piece of evidence directly implicating the lender company.
In view of the above discussion, the additions made by the Assessing Officer are found to be justified. The assessment order dated March 18, 2024, is hereby confirmed, and the appeal is DISMISSED."
3. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 9 and relied on the submissions made before the lower authorities.
4. In ground No. 1.1 and 1.2, the assessee is aggrieved with invoking of section 69A of the Act instead of section 68 of the Act. The primary contention of the assessee is that section 69A has been Bajaj International Realty Pvt. Ltd. 9 ITA No. 5320/MUM/2025 wrongly invoked since the loan was duly recorded in the books of account. The ld Counsel for assessee submitted that in the case Rs.20,52,866/- from M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd. was appearing loan of Rs.20,52,866/ appe in the books of accounts of the assessee and therefore, provisions of section 69A of the Act were not applicable. It is submitted that section 69A applies only where the assessee is found to be the owner of money not recorded in the books. The Revenue, Revenu on the other hand, contends that both the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has considered and informed the assessee to justify the loan received from M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd. , thus, the substance of the addition pertains to unexplained credit a nd therefore falls and within section 68, and mere misquotation of a statutory provision does not vitiate the addition, addit when the assessee was also aware of the fact that provision of section 68 of the Act are relevant and the Assessing Officer has also raised the queries treating the amount in dispute received from M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd. as unsecured loan.
4.1 Having considered the submissions of the parties, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) has clearly brought on record that loan of Rs.20,52,866/- shown to be received from M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd. was merely accommodation entry, in i view of statement of Shri Rajesh G. Mehta and therefore, clearly said loan was liable to be examined u/s 68 of the Act and not u/s 69A of the Act. The section 69A is relevant only when assessee is money bullion etc. which is not recorded in found to be owner of money, Bajaj International Realty Pvt. Ltd. 10 ITA No. 5320/MUM/2025 the books of accounts. Therefore, the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly applied section 69A of the Act.
4.2 While we find merit in the Assessee's technical contention that Section 68 is the appropriate provision for sums credited in books, it is a settled principle of law that the mere mention of a wrong section does not vitiate an assessment so long as the power powe to tax exists or the ingredients of the correct provision are satisfied and the Assessee was fully cognizant of the nature of the inquiry..
inquiry. In the case entire enquiry by the Assessing Officer revolved around the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of the lender -- matters squarely falling within section 68. The assessee was fully aware of the nature of enquiry and responded accordingly. Consequently, we uphold the addition under the canopy of Section 68 of the Act, addition on a mere technicality. The rejecting the plea to delete the addition ground Nos.. 1.1 and 1.2 of the assessee of the assessee are accordingly dismissed.
5. In ground No. 1.3 of the appeal, the assessee is aggrieved that Shri Rajesh G Mehta during his statement u/s 132(4) of the Act tated of providing accommodation entry to the entities of the only stated 'One World Group' and 'Pittie Group'' and not to the assessee, so according to the assessee, addition in the hands of assessee is not justified.
Bajaj International Realty Pvt. Ltd. 11 ITA No. 5320/MUM/2025 5.1 We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. The record reveals that Shri Rajesh G. Mehta categorically admitted controlling various paper entities, including M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd., and stated on oath that these ese entities existed only for providing accommodation entries without carrying out genuine business. Once it is admitted by the controlling person that the company in question was merely an accommodation entry provider with no real business activity, the haracter of the entity stands seriously impaired. The absence of a character specific reference to the assessee does not exonerate the transaction and cannot bring M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd. out of entry providers. As the said company was not having any real business, the th entry of the loan provided to the assessee also becomes in the nature of accommodation entry. The critical fact is that the lender itself stands admitted to be a paper concern. If the lender has no genuine business existence, the loan transaction claimed by the assessee necessarily attracts strict scrutiny. Once the source itself is proven to be a conduit for laundering, the specific naming of a beneficiary becomes secondary to the established nature of the source. The "OneWorld" and "Pittie" groups were merely examples of his clientele; his admission regarding the "shell" nature of the lender company remains a potent piece of evidence that the Assessee failed to rebut. Therefore, reliance placed by the assessee on some part of the statement of Shri Rajesh G Mehta cannot help. As far as statement of Urvil Jani is concerned , his statement was with Bajaj International Realty Pvt. Ltd. 12 ITA No. 5320/MUM/2025 One World Group reference to accommodation entries obtained by 'One Group' company from Shri Rajesh G Mehta and therefore, his statement must be related to One World Group entities and cannot be extended to the assessee. But as far as statement of Shri Rajesh G Mehta is concerned i.e. related to M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd., Ltd. from whom the assessee has received entry of the unsecured unsecur loans, same can't be ignored. Accordingly, the ground No. 1.3 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
6. In ground Nos.. 1.4 of the appeal, the assessee submits that Assessing Officer has disregarded the relevant evidences evidence including details of bank account, ledger copy of the M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd. etc. 6.1 We have heard rival submissions of the parties and an perused the relevant material on record. The assessee was required to discharge its burden of proof in respect of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in relation tto o loan received from M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd. It is contention of the assessee that assessee had filed bank account details, ledger copy of M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd., bank statement highlighting receipt and repayment of the loan stateme of M/s Aneri Finacap Ltd. filed and interest and financial statement with Register of Companies.
Companies. But in the light of the information gathered during the search on the Rajesh G Metha, Metha wherein he himself admitted that Aneri Fincap Ltd. was not in any real business and was engaged in providing accommodation entry only, providing Bajaj International Realty Pvt. Ltd. 13 ITA No. 5320/MUM/2025 he onus was on the assessee to establish whether M/s Aneri the Fincap Ltd. was doing any real business and transaction was genuine but neither efforts were made by the assessee to produce Assessing Officer nor brought said party for verification of the Assessing substantive material demonstrating its financial capacity independent of entry operations, in order to discharge its burden of proof. Mere routing of funds through banking channels does not ipso facto establish genuineness.
6.2 ssessee has failed to demonstrate creditworthiness of The assessee said party. Before us also no details documentary evidence in support of creditworthiness have been filed. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in g the addition treating the unsecured loan as explained sustaining cash credit.
7. In ground No. 1.6, the assessee has raised the issue that no opportunity was given to the assessee to cross examine Mr. Rajesh cross-examine G Mehta.
7.1 Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we inion that principles of natural justice require are of the opinion examination where adverse material is relied opportunity of cross--examination upon. However, the present case stands on a slightly different n is not made solely on the basis of the third-
footing. The addition third party statement but on the assessee's failure to establish
Bajaj International Realty Pvt. Ltd. 14 ITA No. 5320/MUM/2025 creditworthiness and genuineness under section 68. The primary burden rests upon the assessee. The assessee, having transacted with the lender, was in a position to produce it or substantiate its financial credentials. Having failed to discharge this statutory burden, it cannot shift the onus by merely demanding cross-
cross examination. In the facts of the case, we do not find that denial of cross-examination vitiates the assessment.. Accordingly, the ground No. 1.6 is dismissed.
8. In ground No. 1.5 of the appeal, the assessee has raised the issue that while recording reasons to believe the Assessing Officer dependent mind or nor conducted any inquiry to has not applied independent came to the conclusion that assessee was involved into accommodation entries.
8.1 We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused record.. In the case, the reassessment has the relevant materials on record been reopened under the amended provisions of section 148 of the Act where before issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act, Act under the section 148A(a) of the Act the material gathered by the Revenue is being provided to the assessee and thereafter notice u/s 148A(b) of asking the assessee to explain the said material. the Act is issued asking After considering the submission of the assessee, the Assessing Officer is required to pass order u/s 148A(d) of the Act holding that income escaped assessment and thereafter only notice u/s 148 of sued. In the entire procedure, the Assessing Officer the Act is issued.
Bajaj International Realty Pvt. Ltd. 15 ITA No. 5320/MUM/2025 considering the material on record and the explanation of the assessee determine whe whether ther income escaped assessment. We find that the AO followed the "due process" prescribed under the amended Section 148A. The information received was "tangible material" that suggested the escapement of income. The AO is not "mini trial" at the stage of reopening; he only required to conduct a "mini-trial"
needs to form a prima facie belief based on relevant material, which was clearly present here. Since, the Assessing Officer has fo followed the due procedure of law the ground of the assessee of non-
non application of the mind or no inquiry, inquiry are accordingly according without any basis and liable to be dismissed at threshold. The ground No. 1.5 of the assessee is accordingly dismissed.
9. The ground No. 2 is in respect of commission income estimated on the accommodation entry received by the assessee. Once the primary transaction is held to be an accommodation entry, payment of commission becomes a reasonable and natural corollary. In matters involving clandestine transactions, direct evidence of commission is rarely available. The estimation is directl directly based on sworn admission regarding standard commission rates. We find no perversity in the addition of ₹11,085/- under section 69C. Ground No. 2 is dismissed.
10. As far as ground No. 3 of the appeal is concerned, Once the unexplained under section 68, the interest loan itself is held to be unexplained claimed thereon cannot be regarded as expenditure incurred wholly Bajaj International Realty Pvt. Ltd. 16 ITA No. 5320/MUM/2025 and exclusively for business purposes under section 37. The disallowance of ₹43,940/ 43,940/- is therefore consequential and justified.
the finding of the lower authorities on the Accordingly, we uphold the th issue in dispute and dismiss the ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee.
11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced /03/2026.
ounced in the open Court on 12/0
Sd/-
Sd/ Sd/-
(KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL)
RAJAGOPAL (OM
OM PRAKASH KANT)
KANT
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai;
Dated: 12/03/2026
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.
BY ORDER,
//True Copy//
(Assistant Registrar)
ITAT, Mumbai