← 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

Surinder Kumar Chhabra, Gurgaon vs. Circle 4(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 4776/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 69C

material available on record. 8.1 On perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A), it is seen that the same is a non-speaking order. The Ld. CIT(A) has not brought on record how the evidences filed by the assessee were unreliable and 5 ITA No.- 4776/Del/2024 Surinder

Shri Maheshkumar Jivrambhai Joshi, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2 (2)(3), Rajkot

ITA 635/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Oct 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pandya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Dixit, Ld. Sr. DR

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

Annai Kanthammal Ramachandran Educational and Charitable Trust, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1987/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri. G. Reddi Prakash, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

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

Muthukumar Shanmugavadivel, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-3(1), Coimbatore

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

ITA 2205/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2205/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Muthukumar The Income Tax Officer, Shanmugavadivel, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 3(1), 38, Chidambaram Colony, Coimbatore Telungupalayam S.O., Coimbatore South, Coimbatore – 641 039. Pan: Eoeps 7752M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. S. Mathangi, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2025

For Appellant: Ms. S. Mathangi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 250

deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee. However, it is also noticed that the FAA has dismissed the appeal in-limine through a non-speaking order without adjudicating the specific grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, we set aside the order of FAA and remit the matter back

Lata Sharadrao Khadse, Nagpur vs. ITO WD3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 549/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

been passed ex parte, without affording the Appellant effective opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 2. Non-speaking Order: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not passing a reasoned and speaking order as mandated under section 250(6) of the Act. 3. Agricultural

Alkesh Sharadraoji Khadse, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 544/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

been passed ex parte, without affording the Appellant effective opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 2. Non-speaking Order: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not passing a reasoned and speaking order as mandated under section 250(6) of the Act. 3. Agricultural

Lata Sharadrao Khadse, Nagpur vs. A.O. Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 537/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

been passed ex parte, without affording the Appellant effective opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 2. Non-speaking Order: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not passing a reasoned and speaking order as mandated under section 250(6) of the Act. 3. Agricultural

Alkesh Sharadraoji Khadse, Nagpur vs. A.O. Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 536/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

been passed ex parte, without affording the Appellant effective opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 2. Non-speaking Order: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not passing a reasoned and speaking order as mandated under section 250(6) of the Act. 3. Agricultural

Pawan Sharadrao Khadse, Nagpur vs. A.O. Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 534/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

been passed ex parte, without affording the Appellant effective opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 2. Non-speaking Order: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not passing a reasoned and speaking order as mandated under section 250(6) of the Act. 3. Agricultural

Vikas Singh, Shahjahanpur vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 130/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 144Section 144BSection 69C

delay; but has not discussed the assessee’s case in detail. Moreover, the learned CIT(A) has passed a cryptic, vague and non-speaking order, without explaining the facts and circumstances of the case and without supporting his decision with adequate reasons or convincing materials. There are signs of non

Allahabad Bank U. P. Gramin Bank, Banda vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-5, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/LKW/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. Naresh, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

notice of hearing to appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) grossly erred by not deciding the appeal on merit and passing a non-speaking order without considering the merits of the grounds of appeal filed. 3. As the amount of income dispute

Pushpa Indulal Desai, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 268/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.268/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pushpa Indulal Desai The Ito, बनाम Toran Apartment, Ward-1(1)(1), Balmukund Plots, Rajkot Vs. Nirmala Convent Road, Near Oriental Bank, Rajkot Pan : Aibpd7908F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 147Section 250

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, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. Considering the above facts, we note that

Shubhangi Pravin Nidhan, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 545/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

been passed ex parte, without affording the Appellant effective opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 2. Non-speaking Order: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not passing a reasoned and speaking order as mandated under section 250(6) of the Act. 3. Wrong

Shubhangi Pravin Nidhan, Nagpur vs. A.O., Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 535/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

been passed ex parte, without affording the Appellant effective opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 2. Non-speaking Order: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not passing a reasoned and speaking order as mandated under section 250(6) of the Act. 3. Wrong

Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(2), Noida vs. Bhavya Pipe Industry, Greater Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5107/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Bhavya Pipe Industry Ward-5(1)(2), Plot No. F-39, Site- C, Noida. Vs. Upsidc, Industrial Area, Surajpur ,Gautam Buddha Nagar, Gr. Noida-201306 Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Aatfb2209D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 136(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

observed that the facts of the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd. (supra) are not applicable to the present case as it was non-speaking order. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd. (supra) the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court has restricted the addition

Cherukuri Veeraju, Rajahmundry vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

ITA 465/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.465/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Cherukuri Veeraju, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Rajahmundry. Of Income Tax, Pan:Abxpc6760H Circle-1, Rajahmundry. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 13/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 27/05/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nafac), Delhi Under Section 271D Of The 2 Cherukuri Veeraju Vs. Dcit

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271D

unable to concur with the manner in which the appeal had been disposed of by the CIT(A) based on a non-speaking order. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra

North City Hospital & Neuro Institute Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, TDS Ward 2(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1373/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR

produced. It was further submitted that the ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai has without considering the explanation of the assessee blindly by a non-speaking order dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It was the submission that the evidence having been 2 submitted, the addition as made by the ld.AO

Dhananjay Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 842/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N Divetia, with Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

facts in not considering fully and properly the submissions made and evidence produced by the appellant. The CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking order, relying upon the findings of AO which is illegal and unlawful. 2.2 The Id. CIT(A) ought to have allowed sufficient opportunity before disposing

Viswanathan Pappathi, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-2, Vellore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1620/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1620/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Viswanathan Pappathi Income Tax Officer No. 24C, Pudupet Road, Vs. Ward – 2, 4Th Street, Tirupattur, Vellore. Vellore – 635 601. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Ceqpp-4595-H] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. T. V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate &'थ% की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N. Rajakumar, Addl. C.I.T.

For Appellant: Ms. T. V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Rajakumar, Addl. C.I.T
Section 144BSection 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

Gujarat State Petronet Limited, Gandhinagar vs. DCIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 992/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250

assessee was dismissed. 4. Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: - “Non-speaking order u/s.250 without considering written submission - Bad in Law 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law & in facts by not considering & disposing off various ... Page 3 of 9 2. The order passed by the learned CIT(A) u/s. 250 is bad in law as it is a non-speaking order passed without considering or providing any reasons for non-acceptance of various arguments taken in the written submission filed by the Appellant before