“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

Madhusudhan Reddy Lakkireddy, Siddipet vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Siddipet

ITA 1416/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 282Section 694Section 69A

assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that the assessee has suffered dismissal of his appeal vide a non-speaking order in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that though the CIT(A) in his order

Ravinder Reddy Singidi, Vikarabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Vikarabad

In the result, all the three appeals, i

ITA 1163/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

grossly erred in law Ravinder Reddy Singidi vs. ITO 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, Ms. U Mini Chandran, Commissioner of Income Tax- Departmental Representative (for short “Ld. DR”) relied upon ... 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. 12. We find that CIT(A) while

Ravinder Reddy Singidi, Vikarabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Vikarabad

In the result, all the three appeals, i

ITA 1162/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Ravinder Reddy Singidi, Vikarabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Vikarabad

In the result, all the three appeals, i

ITA 1161/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: making the additions to the appellant's income.

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Mangaldeep Chains, Bengaluru

ITA 2562/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CA

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 28Section 69ASection 69B

assessment order dated 09.09.2019 treating the additions as "unexplained Income u/s 69A" that too in a mechanical manner with a cryptic one-line/ non-speaking order as under: Quote "Submission made by you on 06.08.2019 and 16.08.2019 is considered. On a perusal of balance sheet and P&L account

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Mangaldeep Chains, Bengaluru

ITA 2561/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CA

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 28Section 69ASection 69B

R S Construction, Mumbai vs. Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4918/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

cogent evidence. No material has been brought on record to demonstrate that the amount represents unaccounted income of the appellant. 9. Mechanical and Non-Speaking Orders The orders of both the AO and the CIT(A) are non-speaking and lack independent reasoning. The CIT(A) merely affirmed the findings

Tirupati Realbuild Private Limited, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

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

ITA 5406/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Kinshuk Gautam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 148B

assessee. Against the same, the assessee appealed before the Ld.CIT(A) who simply upheld the action of the AO by passing a non-speaking order. 3. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. Upon careful consideration, I note that Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the action ... passing a non-speaking order and AO in his assessment order has observed that since assessee has no substantive documentary evidence to furnish in support of that it was not working as conduit for 2 | P a g e circulating the funds between Dev Wines Group concerned and made

Tirupati Realbuild Private Limited, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, Faridabad

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

ITA 5405/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Kinshuk Gautam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 148B

Ravibhai Mansukhbhai Bhalara, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO WD 2(1)(1), RKT, Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 304/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.304/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Ravibhai Mansukhbhai Bhalara Vs. Income Tax Officer, Amin Marg, Vidhya Kunj Society, Ito Ward 2 (1)(1), T-Office, New Rajkot(Gujarat) - 360001 Aayakar Bhavan, Vatiaka, Rajkot(Gujarat) - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Avqpb6946D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bakul Ganatra, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147

r.w.s. 144 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex-parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. Page 2 of 3 Ravibhai M. Bhalara

Rupesh Kumar Mittal, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 7(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 971/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Mantri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Gautam Singh choudhary, JCIT

Section 250Section 68

displeased at the way the Ld.CIT(A) has dealt with the matter. We note that he has passed a cryptic and non-speaking order, simply reproducing the findings of the AO, ignoring the submission and the evidence filed by the assessee. We deprecate such an approach by the Appellate authority

Neuro Update Chennai, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1480/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Sitharaman, CA &For Respondent: Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. C.I.T

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 250

fall within the meaning of "charitable purpose" (more specifically educational) as defined under Section 2(15) of the Act. This failure constitutes a non-speaking order and a denial of proper appellate consideration. 6. The CIT(A) failed to take note of the fact that the delegate fees

Greentek Reman (P) Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 10(3), Delhi

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

ITA 5479/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18 Greentek Reman Private Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward 10(3), C-129, 2Nd Floor, Naraina Industrial Area-1 New Delhi New Delhi – 110 028 (Pan: Aaecg7749R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 68

record any direct or indirect evidence for denial of submissions. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by passing a non-speaking order and confirmed the addition made by the AO without considering and examining the details. Therefore, in view of the factual

Rajesh Kumar Morodia, New Delhi vs. Office of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 53(2), Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 5457/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18 Rajesh Kumar Morodia, Vs. Ito, Ward 53(2), H.No. 1539, Gali Number 5, Delhi. Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. (Pan: Aphpm3594B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 69C

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

Sudha, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Ward-4, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 2360/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2360/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Sudha, The Ito, 4-254, Panchayat Street, Ward-4, Avaraikulam, Tirunelveli. Radhapuram, Tirunelveli-627 133. [Pan: Gbtps 0255 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.Krishna Murthy AT, JCIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 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 ... 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 Sudha :: 12 :: declared by the Supreme Court. The dismissal

Sri Ramalingam Radha, Namakkal vs. ACIT, Circl-I, Erode

ITA 2342/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2342/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Ramalingam Radha, Oa-13, Kumaresapuram, 7Th Street, Rajiv Nagar, Tiruchengode, Namakkal-637 211. [Pan: Accpr 2234 H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement V. The Acit, Circle-1, Erode. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr.R. Venkata Raman, Fca : Mr.Krishna Murthy At, Jcit : 22.10.2025 : 27.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 26.06.2025 For Ay 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Not Justified In Dismissing The Appeal, On The Ground That The Assessee Did Not Respond To Three Notices Issued. 2. Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Tax (Appeals) Ought Not To Have Relied On A Few Decisions Rendered Under Other Acts & On A Few Under The Income Tax Act, None Of Which Apply To The Facts Of The Assessee'S Case. :: 2 ::

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH: CHENΝΑΙ श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Pichaimani Gunasundari, Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Nc-22(1), Tambaram

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

ITA 2333/CHNY/2025[2019-20 ]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2333/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Pichaimani Gunasundari, The Ito, No.65, Saratha Flats, Non-Corporate Ward-22(1), Ganapathi Nagar, Tambaram. 4Th Street, Urapakkam, Kancheepuram-603 210. [Pan: Cqgpg 6518 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.N. Arjunraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Krishna Murthy AT, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 69Section 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 ... 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

Jayanthy Venkata Ramamurthy, Gautam Budha Nagar vs. ITO Ward 5(3)(1), Gautam Budha Nagar

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

ITA 5497/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13 Jayanthy Venkata Ramamurthy, Vs. Ito, Ward 5(3)(1), D-68, Sector-40, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, Noida (Pan: Adapj2155L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Neelesh Kumar Jain, Ca Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 148

records, I find that AO has passed the exparte assessment order and Ld. CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal by passing a non-speaking order and also not decided the same on merit issue as well as on jurisdictional issue. Therefore, in view of the factual matrix, as aforesaid

Sanjay Mohanbhai Molia, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot

ITA 595/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Adjournment Application

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोटन्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

Shri Bhama Punja Bharai, Junagadh vs. The ACIT Central Circle 2, Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 590/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hybrid Hearing) Assessment Year: (2021-22) Bhama Punja Bharai Vs. Acit Circle-2, Rajkot Near Kuvav Talav, Grofed Road, Azad Aaykar Bhawan, Race Chowk S.O. Junagadh- 362710 Course Road, Rajkot-360001 Pan : Dvxpb 2168 H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Adjournment Application सुनवाई क" तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per,Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Ahmedabad/ National Faceless Appeal, Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] 24.01.2025 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed U/S.144 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In-After Referred To As “The Act”) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2.When The Matter Was Called For Hearing, I Note That The Assessee, Submitted By Way Of Affidavit That The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Belatedly. I Have Gone Through The Affidavit Filed In This Regard Citing Reasons For Condonation Of Delay & I Note That Assessee Urged For A Benign View & Sought Condonation Of Delay Of 182 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. A Perusal Of The

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Adjournment Application

Section 144

carried out u/s 144 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 4. Considering the above facts