← 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

Vedkiran Infra Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1556/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 1556/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vedkiran Infra Projects Vs. Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle-8(1), Pan: Aaecv4030C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [For Short, “Cit(A)”) Dated 10.02.2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 30.12.2019 For Ay 2017-18. The Assessee Company Has Assailed The Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)

this regard is liable to be deleted. 2. The Lal. CIT(A) ought to have observed that the Ld. AO has passed a non-speaking order as there is no basis for rejection of books of accounts as well as there is no speaking, reference to the comparisons sought

Jithender Tatia, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-115(92), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

ITA 2618/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2618/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Jithender Tatia, The Ito, No.127, 9Th Block, Flat No.9031, Ward-115(92), 3Rd Floor, Tvh Lumbini Square, Chennai. Purasawalkam, Chennai-600 007. [Pan: Aafpj 8967 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148

therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (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 not stand ... even ex parte, that is, in the absence of the opposite party. In any case, the dismissal would remain a dismissal by a non-speaking order where no reasons have been assigned and no law has been declared by the Supreme Court. The dismissal is not of the appeal

Vlspl 136 Vangloor Paccs, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vellore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

ITA 2609/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2609/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Vlspl 136 Vangloor Primary The Ito, Agricultural Coop. Credit Society, Ward-1, Vlspl 136 Vangloor Pacb, Vellore. Walajapet, Vellore-632 513. [Pan: Aabav 0564 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148

therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (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 not stand ... even ex parte, that is, in the absence of the opposite party. In any case, the dismissal would remain a dismissal by a non-speaking order where no reasons have been assigned and no law has been declared by the Supreme Court. The dismissal is not of the appeal

Dicto Dino Raj Dennis, Kodimunai, Kalkulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nagercoil, Income Tax Office

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

ITA 2561/CHNY/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Dicto Dino Raj Dennis, The Ito, No.4/218, Anbiyam-23, Kodimunai, Ward-(1), Kodimunai Post, Kalkulam Taluka, Nagercoil. Kanyakumari-629 251. [Pan: Brlpd 0629 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. T. Vasudevan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148

therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (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 not stand ... even ex parte, that is, in the absence of the opposite party. In any case, the dismissal would remain a dismissal by a non-speaking order where no reasons have been assigned and no law has been declared by the Supreme Court. The dismissal is not of the appeal

Sa Feeds, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

ITA 2550/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
Section 144BSection 147Section 148

therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (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 not stand

Palaniyappan Loganathan, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

ITA 2549/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2549/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Palaniyappan Loganathan, The Ito, 5/95, South Street, Ward-1(2), Navalur Attur, Salem. Salem-636 116. [Pan: Aqjpl 5540 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148

therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (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 not stand ... even ex parte, that is, in the absence of the opposite party. In any case, the dismissal would remain a dismissal by a non-speaking order where no reasons have been assigned and no law has been declared by the Supreme Court. The dismissal is not of the appeal

Sundaram Yesuraja Sunil, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corprate Ward 9(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

ITA 2545/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2545/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Sundaram Yesuraja Sunil, The Ito, Dr.No.1/10, Non-Corporate Ward-9(1), Kovur Vaithyanathan Street, Chennai. Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Gedps 3793 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. Girish Kumar. S, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18.11.2025 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025

For Appellant: Mr. Girish Kumar. SFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148

therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (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 not stand ... even ex parte, that is, in the absence of the opposite party. In any case, the dismissal would remain a dismissal by a non-speaking order where no reasons have been assigned and no law has been declared by the Supreme Court. The dismissal is not of the appeal

Sathiskumar, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward 1, Tiruchengode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

ITA 2537/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2537/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Sathishkumar, The Ito, 1/126, Senkuttaipalayam Ward-1, Seerampalayam Post, Tiruchengode. Samayasangali Agraharam, Tiruchengode, Namakkal-638 008. [Pan: Ggwps 7474 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Girish Kumar. SFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148

therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (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 not stand ... even ex parte, that is, in the absence of the opposite party. In any case, the dismissal would remain a dismissal by a non-speaking order where no reasons have been assigned and no law has been declared by the Supreme Court. The dismissal is not of the appeal

Vellaisamy Natarajan, Pudhukurichi vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karaikudi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2520/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: 19.11.2025
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (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 not stand

Kgn Fitness & Development Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-4(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2370/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjunraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Krishna Murthy AT, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 271(1)(c)

therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (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 not stand

Kgn Fitness & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-4(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2369/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjunraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Krishna Murthy AT, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 271(1)(c)

therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (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 not stand

Abdul Kani Kareem, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1905/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: 18.11.2025
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (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 not stand

Abdul Kani Kareem, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1904/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: 18.11.2025
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (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 not stand

Thurapsha Syed Ibrahim, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Ward-4, Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

ITA 1884/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1884/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Thurapsha Syed Ibrahim, The Ito, No.6/16, Pallivasal Street, Ward-4, Vedampudur, Aiyampuram P.O., Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 805. [Pan: Abepi 2962E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (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 not stand ... even ex parte, that is, in the absence of the opposite party. In any case, the dismissal would remain a dismissal by a non-speaking order where no reasons have been assigned and no law has been declared by the Supreme Court. The dismissal is not of the appeal

Dinesh Kumar, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3313/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.3311 To 3313/Del/2025 (Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dinesh Kumar, Dcit, 407, Nilgiri Apartments, Central Circle-07, Alaknanda, New Delhi-110019. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aiopg3637K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nirbhay Mehta, Adv. Department By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: All These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Three Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [Cit(A) In Short] All Are Dated 20.03.2025 For Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254Section 263Section 68

rs.18,28,660/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the IT Act on account of suspense account by passing an ex-parte non-speaking order without specifically adjudicating the ground of appeal taken by the appellant that the assessment year under consideration is an unabated assessment and thus

Dinesh Kumar, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circel-07, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3312/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.3311 To 3313/Del/2025 (Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dinesh Kumar, Dcit, 407, Nilgiri Apartments, Central Circle-07, Alaknanda, New Delhi-110019. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aiopg3637K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nirbhay Mehta, Adv. Department By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: All These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Three Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [Cit(A) In Short] All Are Dated 20.03.2025 For Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254Section 263Section 68

rs.18,28,660/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the IT Act on account of suspense account by passing an ex-parte non-speaking order without specifically adjudicating the ground of appeal taken by the appellant that the assessment year under consideration is an unabated assessment and thus

Dinesh Kumar, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3311/DEL/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.3311 To 3313/Del/2025 (Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dinesh Kumar, Dcit, 407, Nilgiri Apartments, Central Circle-07, Alaknanda, New Delhi-110019. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aiopg3637K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nirbhay Mehta, Adv. Department By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: All These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Three Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [Cit(A) In Short] All Are Dated 20.03.2025 For Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254Section 263Section 68

rs.18,28,660/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the IT Act on account of suspense account by passing an ex-parte non-speaking order without specifically adjudicating the ground of appeal taken by the appellant that the assessment year under consideration is an unabated assessment and thus

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. The Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2379/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250

therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (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 not stand

Manjeet Kaur Kamboj, Yamuna Nagar Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2, Yamuna Nagar Haryana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 550/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumat & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 550/Chd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Manjit Kaur Kamboj, Ito Ward-2, Lotus Valley Public School, बनाम Yamuna Nagar, Sector – 18, Huda, Haryana Vs. Yamunanagar, Haryana "ायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Abmpk5213G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) िनधा""रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Meenal Goyal, Ca & Sh. Abhinav Jain, Adv. राज" की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश/Order Shri Laliet Kumar: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2024 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal, As Taken By The Assessee In Form 36, Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Ms. Meenal Goyal, CA and Sh. Abhinav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

Srinivas Pandit (HUF) v. ITO [2010] 5 taxmann.com 38. 8. (4) For that the 1st impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), & non-speaking order merely affirming the 2nd impugned order and is therefore liable to be quashed vide Rajkumar Anandchand Jain v. Dy Commissioner of Income

Anjaneyulu Reddy Ammireddy, Vinukonda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Narasaraopet

ITA 542/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.542/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Vs. Anjaneyulu Reddy Ammireddy, Income Tax Officer, Vinukonda. Ward-1, Pan: Aelpa3332C Narasaraopet. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 25/07/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 29/02/2024. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 69

placed on record). 8. Alternatively, the Ld. AR submitted that as the CIT(A) had arbitrarily disposed of the appeal based on a non-speaking order, i.e., without dealing with the specific issues that were assailed by the assessee before him and dismissed his appeal for want of prosecution, therefore