← 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

Shri Dayabhai Karshanbhai Gareja, Mangrol, District Junagadh vs. The ACIT Circle1, Junagadh

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

ITA 415/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

Pennam Foundation, Hyderabad vs. CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee trust in ITA

ITA 222/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Us:

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

have thoughtfully considered the order passed by the ClT(Exemption), and are of the considered view that the impugned order is a non-speaking order. The ClT(Exemption) has not brought on record any finding or material analysis to substantiate how and in what manner the activities of the trust

Karshan Mansukh Solanki, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 446/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144

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. ITA No. 446/RjU2025 Karshan Mansukh

Jtiendra Pravinbhai Dhakan, Una vs. The ITO Ward-4, Veraval

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

ITA 921/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Divyesh Sodha, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147

MAPCaN asp Wale aAMaAnlS AaHle | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

Shashi Infra Construction Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. ITO, Lucknow

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

ITA 353/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Shashi Infra V. The Constructions Pvt Ltd Addl/Joint/Deputy/Asstt/Income 328B, 5Th Lane Rajendra Tax Officer, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226004. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Tan/Pan:Aaucs5802M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 694ASection 69A

reasons, one cannot form an opinion that reopening of assessment is made with reference to the conditions in the Act. Therefore, a non-speaking order in this regard non sustainable and therefore, the impugned order is to be construed as lacking, on application of mind and the objections raised

Ranmalbhai Palabhai Chhuchhar, Jamnagar, Gujarat vs. Assessing Officer, Jamnagar, Gujarat

In the result, both the appeals of the same assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 503/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Ms. Madhvi Khetiya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147

r.w.s. 144 and 144B 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. 6. Considering the above facts

Ranmalbhai Palabhai Chhuchhar, Jamnagar, Gujarat vs. Assessing Officer, Jamnagar, Gujarat

In the result, both the appeals of the same assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 502/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Ms. Madhvi Khetiya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147

r.w.s. 144 and 144B 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. 6. Considering the above facts

Chinnappan Peter Francis, Kumbakonam vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1484/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1484/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Chinnappan Peter Ito, Francis, Vs. Ward I, No. 113, Kamraj Road, Kumbakonam. Bishops House, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Bwspp-2816-G] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By प्रत्यथी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 : 09.09.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Dated 17.04.2025, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Against The Order U/S.147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Passed By The Ito (Assessing Officer), Ward I, Thanjavur Dated 30.01.2024. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar For The Assessee Mr.Y.Sridhar, Advocate For The Assessee Has Raised An Additional Ground Relating To Jurisdiction Of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (‘Jao’) In The Light Of The Cbdt Notification Dated 29.03.2022 & The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Madras High Court In The Case Of Tvs Credit Services Ltd. Vs. Dcit (W.P.No.22402 Of 2024 Dated 24.06.2025). The Ld.Dr, Mr.R.Raghupathy, Addl.Cit, Objected Admission Of Additional Ground Raised By The Assessee.

For Respondent: Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 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

Arvind Kumar, Panipat vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2178/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 37Section 69C

Supreme Court in c/o NK Proteins Ltd [2017] 84 taxmann.com 195 (SC) is not valid. The said decision was a non-speaking order where the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed SLP filed by the assessee against the order of Page 5 of 7 ITA No. 2178 /DEL/2025 Arvind Kumar

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam vs. Pawan Cargo Forwards Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in terms above and cross objection filed by the assessee become infructuous in terms of our above order

ITA 3116/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3116/Chny/2024 (िनधा&रणवष& / Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Pawan Cargo Forwards Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Vs. 518, Mkn Road, Pawan Imperia, Circle-1(Ltu) Alandur Mkn Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan: Aaccp 2477P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.06.2025
Section 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

Incometax Officer Exemptions, Tirunelveli vs. Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocesan Trust Association India, Thoothukudi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1811/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1811/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocesan Tirunelveli Trust Association India, Nellai City Center, Rahmath Nagar, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu-627 011. [Pan: Aaatt9724G]

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Veeramany K, IRS
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

impugned addition. There are also indications of no enquiries conducted by the Ld.AO. The Ld.First Appellate Authority also has passed a cryptic non-speaking order by merely reproducing the assessee’s submissions. Page - 3 - of 5 ITA No.1811 /Chny/2025 5.0 We have thus noted that inadequate submission of details

Acharya Sri Tulsi Mahapragya Seva Kendra Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. CIT(Exemptions), Bangalore

ITA 951/BANG/2025[NA]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore03 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

erred in not adequately considering submissions made on the Appellant, has ignored the evidence of compliance with section 80G(5) conditions, and passes non-speaking order based on surmises and assumptions. 9. The Appellant therefore prays that the impugned order be quashed and the Respondent be directed to grant approval

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 4633/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 237Section 244ASection 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(1)(b)Section 246ASection 246A(1)(b)Section 246A(1)(i)

under the Faceless Appeals Scheme 2021, provided under section 250(6B) of the Act. 4. The impugned order is an ex-parte and non-speaking order, passed without considering the facts, merits, or arguments of the appellant, and hence is arbitrary, unjust, and liable to be quashed. Ground

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 4632/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 237Section 244ASection 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(1)(b)Section 246ASection 246A(1)(b)Section 246A(1)(i)

under the Faceless Appeals Scheme 2021, provided under section 250(6B) of the Act. 4. The impugned order is an ex-parte and non-speaking order, passed without considering the facts, merits, or arguments of the appellant, and hence is arbitrary, unjust, and liable to be quashed. Ground

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 4631/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 237Section 244ASection 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(1)(b)Section 246ASection 246A(1)(b)Section 246A(1)(i)

under the Faceless Appeals Scheme 2021, provided under section 250(6B) of the Act. 4. The impugned order is an ex-parte and non-speaking order, passed without considering the facts, merits, or arguments of the appellant, and hence is arbitrary, unjust, and liable to be quashed. Ground

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 4630/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 237Section 244ASection 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(1)(b)Section 246ASection 246A(1)(b)Section 246A(1)(i)

under the Faceless Appeals Scheme 2021, provided under section 250(6B) of the Act. 4. The impugned order is an ex-parte and non-speaking order, passed without considering the facts, merits, or arguments of the appellant, and hence is arbitrary, unjust, and liable to be quashed. Ground

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 4629/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 237Section 244ASection 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(1)(b)Section 246ASection 246A(1)(b)Section 246A(1)(i)

under the Faceless Appeals Scheme 2021, provided under section 250(6B) of the Act. 4. The impugned order is an ex-parte and non-speaking order, passed without considering the facts, merits, or arguments of the appellant, and hence is arbitrary, unjust, and liable to be quashed. Ground

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2 3 1, Mumbai

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 4628/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 237Section 244ASection 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(1)(b)Section 246ASection 246A(1)(b)Section 246A(1)(i)

under the Faceless Appeals Scheme 2021, provided under section 250(6B) of the Act. 4. The impugned order is an ex-parte and non-speaking order, passed without considering the facts, merits, or arguments of the appellant, and hence is arbitrary, unjust, and liable to be quashed. Ground

Prabha Trading Corporation, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2119/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

stated anywhere as to how he has come to this finding. To that extent, the assessment order is non-speaking order. This addition is a pure assumption on part of the AO. Addition cannot be made on assumptions especially when there is proper compliance on the part of the assessee

Jai Kishan Shahani, Adipur - Kutch vs. The ITO Ward-1, Gandhidham-Kutchh

In the result, all three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 309/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 307 To 309/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Jai Kishan Shahani, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1 Sbx 45 Ward 2A, Old 15 A Gandhidham-Kutchh Wadi, Adipur-370205 Dist-Kutch ( Gujarat) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Birps0954H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt. Ashta Maniyar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 271A

r.w.s. 147 of the Act and the impugned orders passed by the ld. CIT(A), are an ex parte orders and non-speaking orders, therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. We note that assessee has participated