← All Phrases

“non-speaking order”

Natural JusticeReasoned OrderReasoned Order793 judgments

The decision most relied on for non-speaking order is Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (245 ITR 360), cited in 361 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on non-speaking order

Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala
245 ITR 360 · 2000 · Supreme Court
361
citing judgments

An order refusing special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, whether speaking or non-speaking, does not attract the doctrine of merger, meaning the order under challenge is not substituted.

Employees’ Welfare Assn. v. Union of India
4 SCC 187 · 1989 · Reported
40
citing judgments

Dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in limine does not amount to a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution, nor does it confirm the view of the lower court.

Sundaram Multi Pap Ltd. v. ACIT
164 Taxmann.com 414 · 2024 · High Court
31
citing judgments

An order passed under Section 148A(d) and subsequent proceedings are void if the Assessing Officer provides insufficient opportunity for the assessee to file a reply before issuing the notice under Section 148A(b).

Ms. Swati Pawa v. DCIT
103 Taxmann.com 300 · 2019 · High Court
27
citing judgments

The Commissioner (Appeals) may pass an order on the basis of material available on hand if the assessee fails to comply with notices despite sufficient opportunity. However, the Tribunal may restore appeals to the AO if similar cases on similar facts were restored.

Royal Bitumen (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT
164 Taxmann.com 606 · 2024 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Orders passed under section 148A(d) and subsequent reassessment proceedings are vitiated if the Assessing Officer fails to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee before issuing the notice.

Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. v. DCIT/ACIT
164 Taxmann.com 608 · 2024 · High Court
24
citing judgments

Orders under section 148A(d) are subject to appeal and the Supreme Court has upheld High Court decisions that considered them appealable. The dismissal of SLPs by the Supreme Court in related cases indicates a settled position on this matter.

16. Further, in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. & Others v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, Kollegal
4 SCC 376 · 2019 · Reported
21
citing judgments

An order refusing special leave to appeal, whether speaking or non-speaking, does not attract the doctrine of merger and does not substitute the order under challenge.

State of Manipur v. Thingujam Brojen Meetai
9 SCC 29 · 1996 · Reported
15
citing judgments

A Supreme Court judgment dismissed by a non-speaking order does not constitute a declared law and is not binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

Judgments citing non-speaking order

Trambak Raghunath Kale, Amravati vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3, Amravati

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 30/NAG/2026[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.30/Nag/2026 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Trambak Raghunath Kale, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Congress Nagar, Camp Road, Ward-3, Amravati Amravati-444602, Maharashtra Pan: Bbbpk6461L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

grounds raised are dismissed. In the result, appeal is dismissed.” 6. The above finding by ld.CIT(A) prima-facie appears to be a non-speaking order and there is no discussion on merits of the case. 7. I however considering the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

Rishu Garg S/O Sh. Surender Kumar Garg, Yamunanagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Yamunanagar

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

ITA 417/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). However, it is evident from the impugned appellate order that, despite several opportunities granted during the appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to comply and did not file any substantive submissions. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition primarily on account of non-prosecution and absence of supporting evidence.

For Appellant: Ms. Vineet Thakral, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147

account of alleged long-term capital gain and also alleging violation of principles of natural justice and passing of a non-speaking order. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who had not filed the return of income for the year under

Narendra Bansal, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Cirlce -12(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6178/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanasstt. Year : 2016-17 Narendra Bansal, Vs. Acit, Circle 12(2), A-61, Okhla Industrial Area, Delhi Phase-Ii, New Delhi – 110 020 C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 2 [Pan: Ahdpb0964E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

fully appreciated and considered by the AO. We further find that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a cryptic and non-speaking order by observing as under:- “Since the appellant has neither been able to prove the genuineness of transaction before the AO nor before me. The transaction in question

Opt Educational Trust, Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), Delhi

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

ITA 5078/DEL/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmana.Yr. : 2025-26 Opt Educational Trust, Vs. Commisisoner Of Income G-32, Palika Bhawan, R.K. Tax (Exemption), Puram, Sector-1, South New Delhi West Delhi-110022 Civic Centre, Minto Road, (Pan: Aaato0980F) New Delhi – 2

For Appellant: Sh. Shyam Sunder Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, CIT(DR)
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

solely on the basis of rejection of Section 12A application without independently verifying the merits of the 80G application and passed a non-speaking order, without giving any opportunity for submission requisite documents/ evidences. We further note that the Coordinate Bench vide its order 2.12.2025 in assessee’s own case

Jatinder Singh, Yamunanagar, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Yamuna Nagar Haryana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 781/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 781/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Jatinder Singh, The Ito, House No. 8, Vidya Nagar, Vs Ward – 3, Govind Puri Road, Yamunanagar. Yamuna Nagar. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aezps1176G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.M. Monga & Shri Rohit Kaura, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

For Appellant: Shri B.M. Monga & Shri Rohit Kaura, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 148

above, we are of the view that AO even failed to examine the assessment record of the assessee. He has passed a very non-speaking order without taking cognizance of the Income Tax Return filed by the assessee, he simply treated the information percolated to him as a gospel truth

Holistic Advisory Services, Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 202/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shriduvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goenka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, DR

outset, the Id. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Id. CIT (A) has passed a very cryptic and non-speaking order dismissing the appeal in just one Para by passing a two page order without taking into account all the facts and evidences filed by the assessee. Besides ... hearing the submission of the parties and perusing the material available on record, find that CIT (A) has passed a very cryptic and non-speaking order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The Id. Counsel for the assessee submitted that before the Id. AO all the evidences could

Aman Thukral, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Ludhiana

Accordingly, Additional Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical

ITA 886/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Mangal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250(6)Section 69C

decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. However, in the present case, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is a non-speaking order and therefore liable to be set aside. 10. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the purchases made by the assessee were duly supported by purchase

Dayachary Ponnekanti, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1985/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia(In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1985/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Dayachary Ponnekanti, Hyderabad. Pan: Ahspp5496L Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाताकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्वकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाईसमाप्तहोनेकीतिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate Shri Mathivanan S A, Sr. Ar 02/03/2026 11/03/2026 Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Dayachary Ponnekanti, ("The Assessee"), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)") Dated 08/10/2025 For The A.Y.2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 143Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

arbitrary. 6 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO erred in law in passing the non-speaking order u/s 148A(d) holding that the income to the tune of Rs.3,60,00,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section

M/S Care India Solutions for Sustainable Development, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 7439/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Sh. Pratik Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 25Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH 'E', NEW DELHI Before Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member & Smt. Renu

M/S Care India Solution for Sustainable Development, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 7438/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Sh. Pratik Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 25Section 250

non-genuine / bogus, solely based on irregularities observed in the business operations of such third parties without providing his conclusions, thus passing a non-speaking order. 4.4 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in upholding the order of Ld. AO, thereby confirming the finding

M/S Care India Solution for Sustainable Development, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 7437/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Sh. Pratik Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 25Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH `E', NEW DELHI Before Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member & Smt. Renu Jauhri

Nayna Mukesh Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 41(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1861/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ms. Nayna Mukesh Shah, Dcit, Circle 41(2)(1), 14E, Konark Darshan, Kautilya Bhavan, G Block Bkc, Jain Mandir Road, Sarvodaya Nagar, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mulund (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400080 Mumbai – 400051. Pan: Aoqps4652E (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

third party on the basis of which reassessment proceedings initiated and assessment order was passed. 3. The Learned CIT(A) passed the non-speaking order and further also passed the order without application of mind. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in Law as well as of facts

Sh. Randhir Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT Rohtak, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

reiterated. (b) We reiterate the conclusions relevant for these cases as under: "(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does ... been held by this Court that the dismissal of a special leave petition in limine by a non-speaking order does not justify any inference that, by necessary implication, the contentions raised in the special leave petition on the merits of the case have been rejected by the Supreme Court

Surjeet Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

reiterated. (b) We reiterate the conclusions relevant for these cases as under: "(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does ... been held by this Court that the dismissal of a special leave petition in limine by a non-speaking order does not justify any inference that, by necessary implication, the contentions raised in the special leave petition on the merits of the case have been rejected by the Supreme Court

Sh. Paramjeet Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

reiterated. (b) We reiterate the conclusions relevant for these cases as under: "(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does ... been held by this Court that the dismissal of a special leave petition in limine by a non-speaking order does not justify any inference that, by necessary implication, the contentions raised in the special leave petition on the merits of the case have been rejected by the Supreme Court

Dhuni Chand HUF, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

reiterated. (b) We reiterate the conclusions relevant for these cases as under: "(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does ... been held by this Court that the dismissal of a special leave petition in limine by a non-speaking order does not justify any inference that, by necessary implication, the contentions raised in the special leave petition on the merits of the case have been rejected by the Supreme Court

Sh. Kashmir Singh Sandha, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

reiterated. (b) We reiterate the conclusions relevant for these cases as under: "(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does ... been held by this Court that the dismissal of a special leave petition in limine by a non-speaking order does not justify any inference that, by necessary implication, the contentions raised in the special leave petition on the merits of the case have been rejected by the Supreme Court

M/S Ganesh Dass HUF, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

reiterated. (b) We reiterate the conclusions relevant for these cases as under: "(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does ... been held by this Court that the dismissal of a special leave petition in limine by a non-speaking order does not justify any inference that, by necessary implication, the contentions raised in the special leave petition on the merits of the case have been rejected by the Supreme Court

Sh. Arvail Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

reiterated. (b) We reiterate the conclusions relevant for these cases as under: "(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does ... been held by this Court that the dismissal of a special leave petition in limine by a non-speaking order does not justify any inference that, by necessary implication, the contentions raised in the special leave petition on the merits of the case have been rejected by the Supreme Court

Ronak Ashok Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6639/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarronak Ashok Shah Ito-41(3)(3) 1803, Raj Hans Apt., Kautilya Bhavan, Jitendra Road, Malad (E) Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400 097 Pan/Gir No. Bdjps 9744 J (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Kothari Respondent By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. Ar) Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 10.03.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2018-19. 2. In Ground No. 1, The Assessee Has Raised Grievance Against The Ex Parte Disposal Of The Appeal By Ld. First Appellate Authority. Whereas, Ground Nos. 2 To 5 Are On The Issue Of Validity Of Reopening Of Assessment. Ground Nos. 6 & 7 Are On The Authority Of The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (Jao) In Completing The Assessment. Whereas, Ground Nos. 8 To 11 Are On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh KothariFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. AR)
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

present case. The observations of ld. First appellate authority in paragraph 5.7 which sustaining the addition do make out a case of non-speaking order. Even, we have not found any decision of ld. First appellate authority on the legal issue relating to validity of reopening of assessment. Thus, prima