“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trendset Sumanjali Welfare Association, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 935/HYD/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.935/Hyd/2025 [U/Sec.12Ab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961] Trendset Sumanjali The Commissioner Of Welfare Association, Income Tax (Exemptions), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 034. Hyderabad – 500 004. Telangana. Pan Aaiat3303J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Pavan Kumar Beerla, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Sri Pavan Kumar Beerla, CIT-DR

Section 12A

935/Hyd./2025 are not charitable in nature. Therefore, the rejection of the application without considering the relevant record and fact and by a non-speaking order is highly arbitrary and unjustified. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the learned

Narayanan Varalakshmi, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(5), Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2382/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Mr. Krishna Murthy AT, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: 23.10.2025

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

Avann Buildsys Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Karnal, Haryana

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

ITA 5657/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sh. Dhruv Goel, CA (Thru VC)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 263Section 56(2)(viib)

passed the exparte order and even has not decided the matter on merit and upheld the action of the AO by passing a non-speaking order. Therefore, in view of the factual matrix, as 2 | P a g e aforesaid and in the interest of justice, I remit back

Kjsl Foundation, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 5633/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Ms. Shakshi Panday, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 143(1)

merit and only noted that there is no explanation from the assessee, he upheld the action of the AO by passing a non-speaking order. Therefore, in view of the factual matrix, as aforesaid and in the interest of justice, I remit back the issues in dispute to the file

Nasreen Moin Qureshi, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

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

ITA 3822/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 250(6)

confirming the additions made by the AO. The assessee in ground of appeal No.2 has challenged the orders of CIT(A) ex-parte non-speaking order without specifically adjudicating the ground of appeal taken by the appellant. Nasreen Moin Qureshi vs. DCIT 3. The Ld. CIT-DR supported the orders

Sony India Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 22(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3851/DEL/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roysony India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 22 (2), A – 18, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Area, New Delhi. Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044. (Pan :Aabcs1571Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Order : 12.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assesseeis Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2024Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144Bof The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020- 21Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

application dated 01st September 2025 as under :- “Ground 29 : Without prejudice to other grounds, the Hon’ble DRP has erred in passing a non-speaking order by falling to address the Appellant’s objections regarding : (i) including of Sonal Infosoft and exclusion of Annaie Information Pvt. Ltd. and Saitech Instruments ... lost sight of the fact that vide additional ground no. 29, the Assessee is contending that Ld. DRP has passed a non-speaking order on above issues. Assesse could have challenged the non-speaking nature of Ld. DRP's directions only before Hon'ble Tribunal. No other appellate forum exists

Chhedi Lal Gupta, Pratapgarh vs. The Income Tax Officer, Pratapgarh

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

ITA 144/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 253(3)Section 69A

that the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order ex-parte qua the appellant assessee and the order of learned CIT(A) is non-speaking order and has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in a summary manner. In view of the foregoing, the order of learned

Wockhardt Limited, Aurangabad vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1), Pune

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

ITA 837/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Manthan ShahFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

However, it is seen that the Hon Supreme Court has merely dismissed the SLP of the department via a non-speaking order. The legal effect of such a dismissal is well-settled. It does not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution and does not imply

Wockhardt Limited, Aurangabad vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1), Pune

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

ITA 836/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Manthan ShahFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

Wockhardt Limited, Aurangabad vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Pune

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

ITA 835/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.837, 835 & 836/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Wockhardt Limited, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad-431006 Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Pune Pan : Aaacw2472M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Manthan Shah Shri Amit Bobde 13-08-2025 10-11-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Three Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Order(S) All Dated 27.01.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Pune ["Cit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Years ("Ays") 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19. Since, The Issue(S) Involved Are Identical, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

DCIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Canon India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, to sum up and conclude:

ITA 1038/DEL/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

erred in not adjudicating the claim of foreign tax credit and has framed a non-speaking order to that extent apparently ignoring the submissions duly filed by the assessee. 1.3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the DRP has erred in not adjudicating

Ecoenergy Insights Ltd ( Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Systems P.Ltd), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2321/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaecoenergy Insights Ltd., Vs. Dcit, (Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Circle 4 (2), Systems P. Ltd.), New Delhi. Ground Floor, 18, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan :Aaaca0031C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Shri Pratik Rath, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Order : 10.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.07.2022Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 147 Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Ay 2018-19 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 92C

order in appeal set but arbitrarily upholds the view of TPO at para 3.3.2 and 3.3.4 on pages 212 & 213 by a non-speaking order. Relevant extract of DRP Order reads as follows:- 3.3.2 The Panel has considered the submission. It is noticed that the arguments taken before the Panel ... order in appeal set but arbitrarily upholds the view of TPO at para 3.3.2 and 3.3.4 on pages 212 & 213 by a non-speaking order.” 28. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the findings of the lower authorities. 29. Considered the rival submissions and material

Canon India Pvt. Ltd, Gurugram vs. Neac, Delhi

In the result, to sum up and conclude:

ITA 585/DEL/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

Sri Koti Linga Hari Hara Mahakshetram Temple, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption WD, Rajahmundry

ITA 365/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sri Koti Linga Hari Hara Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mahakshetram Temple, Exemption Ward, Visakhapatnam. Rajahmundry. Pan: Acgfs3064C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Cr Hemanth Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 03/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 07/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm :

For Appellant: Sri CR Hemanth Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 10Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 167BSection 194ASection 250(6)Section 65

appeal, submitted that the CIT(A) had grossly erred in law and facts of the case in dismissing the appeal by a non-speaking order on the standalone reason of want of prosecution. 8. Per contra, Dr. Aparna Villuri, Senior Departmental Representative (for short “Ld. DR”) relied upon the orders ... same time are unable to persuade ourselves to concur with the manner in which the said appeal had been disposed of vide a non-speaking order and dismissed for the standalone reason of want of prosecution on the part of the assessee appellant. 11. We have heard both the parties

DCIT., Circle 3(1), Hyderabad vs. Rathnamma Infratech Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1235/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 194H

additions without giving any opportunity to the A.O. to comment on the additional evidences filed by the assessee. Therefore, she submitted that, the non-speaking order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the additions should be set aside and the addition made by the A.O. be sustained

Sanjeev Kumar Rana, Dlehi vs. ITO Ward, Uttarpradesh

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

ITA 5592/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Uma Upadhaya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

assessee preferred the appeal before the CIT(A), who vide his impugned order has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing a non-speaking order and without going into the merits of the case, which is not permissible under the law. 4. I have heard both the parties ... perused the records. Upon careful consideration, I note that Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the action of the AO by passing a non-speaking order and AO has passed the exparte order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. However, it was the contention of the assessee that

Sanjeev Kumar Rana, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 2 -(2) (4), Ghazibad

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

ITA 5591/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Uma Upadhaya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Shri Laxmikant Kakubhai Ruparel, Adipur Kutchh vs. The ITO Ward 1, Gandhidham

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

ITA 581/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pratik A. Kanabar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 147

carried out u/s 147 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 5. Considering the above facts

Aravindhan Bharathi, Tiruchirappalli vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Trichy

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2014/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri. A.G.Sudharshanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

Mavilai Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd Kv 92, Kanyakumari vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 1, Nagercoil

ITA 2013/CHNY/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Shri. G. Reddi Prakash, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69Section 80P