TAKESHI MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAVAN

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“the learned CIT(A)”], under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), for the assessment year 2012-13, arising out of the assessment order dated 02.12.2019 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(3)(1), Mumbai, under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act.

Briefly stated, the assessee filed its return of income in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act declaring a loss of Rs.93,743. The Assessing Officer noticed information relating to transactions aggregating to Rs.1,51,12,710 in National/Multi Commodity Exchange and cash deposits aggregating to Rs.30,00,100 in the assessee's bank account. In the absence of the details considered satisfactory by him, the Assessing Officer estimated income from the exchange transactions at 8%, amounting to Rs.12,09,016, and further treated the cash deposits of Rs.30,00,100 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the total income was assessed at Rs.42,09,116.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) recorded that notices under section 250 of the Act were issued on 05.01.2021, 04.10.2023, 25.10.2023 and 17.10.2024, but no compliance was made. The learned CIT(A), therefore, proceeded ex parte. After observing that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.30,00,100 under section 68 of the Act and dismissed the appeal. The 2

Before us, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the impugned appellate order was passed ex parte without adjudicating all the grounds on merits. It was submitted that one more effective opportunity may be granted to the assessee to place the relevant documents and explanations before the learned CIT(A). The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the authorities below; however, he had no serious objection if the matter was restored to the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The record shows that the learned CIT(A) proceeded ex parte owing to the assessee's non-compliance with the notices of hearing. It is also evident that, while the addition of Rs.30,00,100 under section 68 of the Act was confirmed, the separate ground challenging the addition of Rs.12,09,016 arising from the alleged National/Multi Commodity Exchange transactions was not adjudicated. Section 250(6) of the Act requires the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. Thus, even where an appellant does not appear, the appeal is required to be disposed of on merits by a speaking order dealing with each ground raised before the appellate authority.

Considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the entire appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law. The learned CIT(A) shall afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and

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