“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

Jehan Numa Palace Hotel Private Limited, Bhopal vs. DCIT/ACIT, 5(1), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 203/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

provided in section 143(1)(a) of the Act. 9.BECAUSE, the Intimation order dated 20.03.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer (CPC) is a non-speaking order wherein the reason for the variance and further creation of demand was not explained, hence the same is liable to be quashed. 10.BECAUSE

NA vs. Amaj Nirman Bahu Uddeshiy Sanstha, Nandurbarvs.ITO, Exemption Ward- 1(2), Nashik

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1350/PUN/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

For Appellant: Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 36ASection 80G

tribunals have held that minor procedural lapses should not be the basis for rejection of a genuine charitable trust's registration. Mechanical and Non-Speaking Order 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(Exemption), Pune has erred in passing a mechanical ... cancelling the validly granted provisional approval under section 80G(5), despite the appellant fulfilling all substantive conditions for final registration. Mechanical and Non-Speaking Order 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(Exemption), Pune has erred in passing a mechanical and non

NA vs. Amaj Nirman Bahu Uddeshiy Sanstha, Nandurbarvs.ITO, Exemption Ward- 1(2), Nashik

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1349/PUN/2025[2025-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2025-06

For Appellant: Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 36ASection 80G

Spirit Global Constructions Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3821/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] M/S. Spirit Global Vs Acit, Constructions Pvt.Ltd., Central Circle-15, Plot No.1, Lsc, Site No.37- Delhi 38, Morland, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaics2757B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Amitosh Moitra, Ca & Roli Chaubey, Ca Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)- 26, New Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.10187/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Private Limited Company, Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 27.09.2012, Declaring Loss Of Inr 2,91,85,777/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) In Terms Of Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Wherein Income So Declared Was Accepted. Thereafter, Case Of The Assessee Was Re-Opened In Terms Of The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 31.03.2019 & Subsequently, Re-Assessment Order Was Passed On 24.12.2019 By Making Addition Of Inr 3.50 Crores Received From M/S. Anamika Steel Traders Pvt. Ltd. Of Inr 1.75 Crores & M/S. Gajraj Steel Merchants Pvt.Ltd. Of Inr 1.75 Crores Each By Holding The Same As Unexplained Credits.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

falsehoods in such order. x. The assessment is bad in law, being inequitable and injudicious, as the same has been concluded through a non-speaking order. xi. The assessment is bad in law, being inequitable and injudicious, as the same has been passed by the LAO in haste, by Ignoring

Parvender Sharma, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 4369/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13 Parvender Sharma Vs. Ito , Ward 5(2)(4), Gautam Budh Nagar, New Delhi Noida Uttar Pradesh -201 307 (Pan: Dqhps5784P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh.Rohit Sharma, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2025 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.05.2025 Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. We Have Heard The Rival Contentions & Perused The Records. Before Me, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs. 30,98,000/- U/S. 69A Made By Treating Cash Depsoti In Bank Account As Unexplained. It Was Further Submitted That Cash Of Rs. 4,29,000/- Belong To Smt. Ishwari (Appellant’S Mother) & Cash Of Rs. 25,16,000/- Belongs To Smt. Premvati Related To Various Properties Sold By Original Owner Of The Property I.E. Smt. Premvati. Ld. Cit(A) Ignored The Submission Of Assessee That He Acted Merely As A Dealer / Broker In Property Transactions & Did Not Own The Funds Deposited In The Bank Account. It Was Also Submitted That Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Not Accepting

For Appellant: Sh.Rohit Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961. It is also noted that CIT(A) has not considered the aforesaid plea of the assessee and passed a non-speaking order and affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by holding as under:- “5.2 Vide ground number 7-8 of this appeal, the appellant

Sanjay Prabhudayal Tekriwal, Surat vs. I.T.O Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 511/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitrta Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.511/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Sanjay Prabhudayal Tekriwal Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(4), बनाम/ S-1026 Gautam Textile Surat, Room No.613, 6Th Floor, Vs. Market, 1St Floor, Ring Aaykar Bhawan, Near Majura Road,Surat-394 010 Gate, Opp. Civil Hospital, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adxpt 9123 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 145(1)Section 250Section 68

issued only one notice but did not allow any adjournment though request was made. The CIT(A) has also passed a non-speaking order which is not as per the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. He requested that the assessee may be granted another opportunity of hearing

Abhay Charan Teaching Institute of Vedic Education Association, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 277/LKW/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

these bills and vouchers. It was also submitted that the order besides being against the principles of natural justice, was also a non-speaking order and furthermore the ld. CIT (Exemption) had erred in cancelling the assessee’s provisional registration, which was valid upto the expiry of assessment year

Abhay Charan Teaching Institute of Vedic Education Association, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 276/LKW/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

Vitthaldas Nathubhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 823/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Vitthaldas Nathubhai Shah Vs. The Pr.Cit-3 1St Floor, Tax Planning House Vejalpur Above Usmanpura Underbridge Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 380013. Pan : Acwps 4622 C (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Mukesh Patel, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

speaking, inasmuch as no reasons have been set out while allowing the claim of deduction u/s. 80GGC. It was argued that such a non-speaking order, bereft of reasons, by itself establishes non-application of mind and justifies the assumption of revisional jurisdiction by the PCIT under section

Ashishkumar Bhagvanjibhai Kansagra, Rajkot vs. ACIT Cir - 2(1), RKT, Rajkot

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

ITA 409/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.409/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Ashishkumar Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Acit Kansagara, Circle – 2(1), C-507, Imperial Heights, Rajkot - 360001 150 Feet Ring Road, Rajkot - 360005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acspk6893P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Alpa V. Makadiya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

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. 9. Considering the above facts

Shri Sardar Patel Sarafi Sahkari Mandali Ltd, Bagasara vs. The ITO Ward 3(1)(4), Aayakar Bhavan

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

ITA 560/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No. 560/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Sardar Patel Sarafi Sahkari Income Tax Officer, Wd – Mandali Ltd. Vs. 3(1)(4), Sardar Chowk, Gokul Para, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Bagasara - 365440 Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 Pan No.: Aajas9766K (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

carried out u/s 143(3) 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. 9. Considering the above facts

Amitkumar Ramkishorbhai Sharma, Morbi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Morbi

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

ITA 462/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 69

r.w.s. 147 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex-parte order and non-speaking order, on merit, ( As the learned CIT(A) did not admit the appeal of the assessee, on account of delay in filing the appeal, before him) therefore

Thangamuthu Balakrishnan, Tiruppur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Tiruppur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 719/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 719/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A '(For Respondent: Mr. C. Sivakumar, Addl. CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 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

Sanchit Kantilal Ganore, Bhagur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1767/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1767/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanchit Kantilal Ganore, V The Income Tax Officer, 21, Main Road, Bhagur, S. Ward-1(1), Nashik. Nashik - 422502. Pan: Aprpg4907J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18, Dated 29.05.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 21.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law & Without Prejudice To Other Grounds, Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Passing A

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250

case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds, Ld. NFAC has erred in passing a ITA No.1767/PUN/2025 [A] cryptic and non-speaking order upholding the additions of Rs 1,34,39,289 made by Ld.NaFAC without adjudicating the legal grounds raised by the Appellant and hence, the impugned ... circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds, Ld. NFAC has erred in passing a cryptic and non-speaking order upholding the additions of Rs 1,34,39,289 made by Ld. NaFAC by assigning same reasons that of NaFAC without independently appreciating the written

The Tiruvannamalai Coop Urban Bank Ltd., Tiruvannamalai vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Vellore

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

ITA 2016/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2016/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Tiruvannamalai Co-Op The Income Tax Officer, Urban Bank Ltd., Vs. Circle 1, 87/18, Sannadhi Street, Vellore Tiruvannamalai – 606 601. Pan: Aaeft 9897Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Murali, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, C.A ""For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,JCIT

Section 250Section 270A

reiterating the AO’s order, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Since the order of the FAA is ex-parte and also a non-speaking order, it was prayed in the interest of justice and equity, the issue may be restored to the files of the FAA as a last

Church of Our Lady of Immaculate Conception, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 4999/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254(1)

parte Appellate Order in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The learned CIT(A) has passed a very cryptic and non-speaking Order which fails to deal with and address the grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant in the appeal before him. The Appellant prays that the Appellate

Church of Our Lady of Immaculate Conception, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 4998/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254(1)

DCIT, Cental Circle 2(3), Kolkata vs. Lumino Industries Limited, Merlin Acropolis, E.K.T

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1223/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1223/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata........................…...........................……….……Appellant Vs. Lumino Industries Ltd……………………............…..….…..….......……...…..…..Respondent Unit No.12/4, Merlin Acropolis, E.K.T., Kol-700107. [Pan: Aaacd9817H] C.O No.57/Kol/2025 (In I.T.A. No.1223/Kol/2025) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Lumino Industries Ltd.......................................................................……….…Cross-Objector Unit No.12/4, Merlin Acropolis, E.K.T., Kol-700107. [Pan: Aaacd9817H] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata ……………….…..….......……..…...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. N. Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 16, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue & Cross Objections D By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) – 26, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Dated 27.03.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Ay 2014-15. 02. At The Outset, We Note That There Is A Delay In Filing Of The Appeal By 7 Days By The Revenue, For Which, Condonation Petition Has Been Filed. After Hearing Both The Parties & Perusing The Contents Of The Condonation Application Filed By The Revenue, We Are Of The View That The

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

even on the remaining parties. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing a very cryptic and non-speaking order. Now the issue before us is whether the assessee has duly discharged his burden by filing the aforesaid evidences before the authorities

Shri Dipakkumar Parsotamdas Asanani, Village Jetpur, Dist. Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 1 (2) (1), Rajkot

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

ITA 435/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No. 435/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dipakkumar Parsotamdas Asanani Asanani Ito, Nfac, Delhi Prop. Jay Jalaram Enterprise, M. G. , M. G. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot – 360370 Road, Rajkot - 360001 Pan : Aecpa2955G (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By Assessee By : Shri Brijesh Parekh,Ld.Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. D. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh,Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld

Section 147Section 148

parte order and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised

Shri Bhimabhai Karshanbhai Gareja, Fulrama, Tal. Magrol, Dist. Junagadh vs. The ACIT Circle1, Junagadh

In the result, both these appeals (ITA 415 & 416/Rjt/2025 for AY 2017-18) of

ITA 416/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Maheta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 253(3)

carried out u/s 144 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the Id. 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. 14. I have heard both