PRAKASH S LADHA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 30(2)(5), MUMBAI

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’], under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), arising from the assessment order dated 15.11.2018 passed under section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2011-12.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in shares, commodities and futures & options and it filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 30.08.2011 declaring total income of ₹3,87,240/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and no assessment under section 143(3) was made. Subsequently, the case was reopened under section 147 by issuance of notice under section 148 dated 29.03.2018. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte under section 144 r.w.s. 147 on 15.11.2018 determining the total income at ₹36,57,674/- inter alia, by making an addition of ₹30,07,750/- on account of alleged bogus commodity loss and ₹2,62,684/- on account of undisclosed professional receipts as reflected in Form 26AS. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed that several notices were issued during the course of appellate proceedings, however, there was no effective compliance from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex parte and confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 4. The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) has submitted that the non-compliance before the CIT(A) was neither intentional nor deliberate. It was contended that the initial notice was issued during the COVID-19 period and, thereafter, due to the discontinuation of services by the earlier counsel and loss of key personnel handling tax matters, the assessee could not effectively respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A). It was therefore pleaded that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to present its case on merits. 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.