What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate on merits after ensuring the assessee rectifies any defects in Form 35 and providing an opportunity of being heard.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to defects in Form 35 that were allegedly not rectified. The assessee claimed the defects were removed, but no decision on merit was rendered.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal before the CIT(A) was rightly dismissed on technical grounds without considering the merits, and if the defects in Form 35 were indeed rectified.

Mohammad Islam Mohammad Saleem &… vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Respondent: Shri Balkrishan Gopal, Sr. DR

Hearing: 01.07.2026

ITA No.774/DEL/2026 MOHAMMAD ISLAM MOHAMMAD SALEEM & COMPANY

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.774/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 MOHAMMAD ISLAM MOHAMMAD Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALEEM & CO., Ward 2(3), Badayun-1, Ujhani Road, Bilsi, Budaun, Uttar Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Pradesh 243633. Budaun, Uttar Pradesh 243633. PAN No. ABBFM3946K Appellant Respondent

Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Balkrishan Gopal, Sr. DR

Date of hearing: 01.07.2026 Pronouncement on 08.07.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order dated 13.10.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi.

1.1 On the last date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee but it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication with the help of Ld. DR.

ITA No.774/DEL/2026 MOHAMMAD ISLAM MOHAMMAD SALEEM & COMPANY 1.2 The Ld. DR assisted the Bench in going through the impugned order. It was highlighted that there was some defect in Form 35 which was not rectified by the assessee and therefore the appeal was dismissed on the ground of such defect not having been removed and subsequently no decision on merit has been rendered.

We have considered this matter and have gone through the records. We find that the assessee has claimed, through the grounds of appeal, that the defects communicated to the assessee were duly removed. Be that as it may, we set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. It is expected that the assessee would make good any lacuna in the Form 35 and thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) would adjudicate on merits, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 08.07.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S.

ITA No.774/DEL/2026 MOHAMMAD ISLAM MOHAMMAD SALEEM & COMPANY

MOHAMMAD ISLAM MOHAMMAD SALEEM & CO,BUDAUN, UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO- 2(3), BADAYUN-1/, BUDAUN, UTTAR PRADESH

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