What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case on merits before the CIT(A).

The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance with hearing notices. The assessee claimed the figure in the Income Declaration Scheme (IDS) declaration was incorrect and that income was not earned.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case on merits.

Sudhir Sadanand Ambavane vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAVSHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Sarda

For Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 1779/MUM/2026 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Sudhir Sadanand Ambavane, 001 Vishnu Niwas, Plot No.42, Brahmin Society, Thane – 400602 ............... Appellant PAN: ACYPA1197Q v/s Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(5), B-Wing, 6th Floor, Ashar IT Park, ……………… Respondent Road No.16Z, Wagle Estate, Thane - 400604 Assessee by : Shri Rahul Sarda Revenue by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing – 06/05/2026 Date of Order - 07/05/2026

O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 03/12/2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2014-15.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1) The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the figure of Rs. 6,40,25,117/- mentioned in the declaration filed by the Appellant under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 ("IDS) was incorrect, and hence, such figure could

2 ITA No.1779/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2014-15)

not be treated as income merely because it emanated from such declaration, in the absence of any evidence. 2) The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that since the Appellant himself realized that the figure of Rs. 6,40,25,117/- made in the declaration under the IDS was incorrect, the Appellant himself did not pay the tax thereby leading to the declaration deemed to have never been filed at all. 3) The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant did not earn the income of Rs. 6,40,25,117/-, and hence, treating the same as Appellant's income was akin to taxing income that was never earned/ accrued, and hence, the same is bad in law. 4) The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that there was a reasonable cause for not filing submissions, and hence, the Appellant may be provided one more opportunity to file the same.”

We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, at the outset, it is evident that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte due to the non- compliance of the notices of hearing by the assessee. Now in the present appeal before us, the assessee is duly represented by the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) and wishes to pursue the litigation against the addition made by the AO. Further, the learned AR also undertook that if the appeal is restored to the file of the First Appellate Authority, the assessee will comply with all notices as may be issued. Therefore, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that, in the interest of justice, the assessee be hereby granted one more opportunity to represent its case on merits before the learned CIT(A). Consequently, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the appeal on merits after consideration of all the details/submissions as may be filed by the assessee. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the

3 ITA No.1779/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2014-15)

parties. Further, the assessee is directed to furnish/update his email address in the records before the learned CIT(A) so that the hearing notice(s) are sent to the operational email address. Thus, the assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all the dates of hearing as may be fixed without any default. As the matter is being restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, the other grievances raised by the assessee in the present appeal do not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 07/05/2026

Sd/- Sd/- VIKRAM SINGH YADAV SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 07/05/2026 Prabhat

Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai.

SUDHIR SADANAND AMBAVANE ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(5), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments