← 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

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 308/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

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 307/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

Kadaviben Valji Lagdhir, Porbandar, Gujarat vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Porbandar, Gujarat

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

ITA 205/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 205/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Kadaviben Valji Lagdhir, The Ito, Vs. Ward-2(4), 6/38, Robari Was, Tatha Plot, Porbandar Mokar – 2, Ranavava, Porbandar - 362570 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afapl5970M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250

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, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 5. Considering the above facts

Gaurav Logistics, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-4(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1111/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.:1111/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Gaurav Logistics, Income Tax Officer 32, Gaurav Vara, New Avadi Road, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 4(3), Chennai 600 010. Chennai. [Pan: Aaffg-1902-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Hithesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi Dated 14.02.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. At The Very Outset, We Notice That The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Filed A Memorandum Of Addition Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Validity Of The Assumption Of Jurisdiction For Issuance Of Notice Under Section 148 Of Gaurav Logistics

For Appellant: Shri Hithesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 148Section 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

Micheal Gowda Lazar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and stay petition is dismissed

ITA 1163/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Ksp No.48/Bang/2025 (In Ita No.1163/Bang/2025) Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Micheal Gowda Lazar, Vs. Ito, No.1401, Near Begur Hospital, Begur Road, Ward – 4(3)(4), Begur, Bangalore. Bangalore – 5565 600. Pan : Acepl 0671 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. N. Madhavan, Redtd. Addl. Commissioner. Revenue By : Shri. Swaroop Mannava, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. N. Madhavan, Redtd. Addl. CommissionerFor Respondent: Shri. Swaroop Mannava, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

before the CIT (A). 2. Without prejudice to the above, the following groundsare raised : 3. The CIT (A) erred in passing a non-speaking Order. 4. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that a Notarised Sworn Affidavit was filed before the AO confirming the receipt of Rs. 50 lakhs

Primerose Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2276/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Aug 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

proceedings against the order of the Assessing Officer. In these circumstances as it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking order. We are of the view that the issues in this appeal must be restored to the file

Incometax Officer, Tanuku vs. Venkata Surya Durga Raju Koppisetti, Thimmarajupalem

ITA 330/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: us :

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri MN Murthy Naik
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Venkata Surya Durga Raju Koppisetti amounting to Rs. 8,20,58,150/- has been vacated by the CIT(A) based on an absolutely non-speaking order, which by no means imagination can be endorsed and sustained on our part. 14. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, set aside

Incometax Officer, Tanuku vs. Venkata Surya Durga Raju Koppisetti, Thimmarajupalem

ITA 329/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: us : “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) is erroneous both on facts and in law.

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri MN Murthy Naik
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Venkata Surya Durga Raju Koppisetti amounting to Rs. 8,20,58,150/- has been vacated by the CIT(A) based on an absolutely non-speaking order, which by no means imagination can be endorsed and sustained on our part. 14. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, set aside

Kandasamy Selvaraj, Thothukudi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

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

ITA 1852/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1852/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 V. Kandasamy Selvaraj, The Dcit, 66A-20, Ambal Nagar, Central Circle-1, Madurai Main Road, Madurai-2. Vilathikulam-628 907. Thoothukudi District. [Pan: Baips 2224 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.Balasubramanian, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Veeramany.K., IRS
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148

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

Jalappa Parvathi Devi, Bangalore vs. ITO, Ward 6(3)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 811/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Gunashekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

confirmed the order of the AO without discussing the submissions and evidences filed by the assessee. Thus, the appellate order is also a non-speaking order and suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice. 13.2 The learned AR rightly pointed out that the assessee is a senior citizen

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax It 3.1.2, Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai vs. Kuwait Investment Authority, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4207/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Farookh V. Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)

assessee in the earlier years would not be applicable for the year under consideration is not enough. Such an order is A non-speaking order having no reasoning and therefore. it cannot be endorsed." 14. It would not be out of place to refer to the Amiri Decree

Global Educom Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1109/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 68

gross violation of principles of natural justice. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in passing a non-speaking order in gross violation of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Global Educom Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year

Chanchala Kumari, Jammu and Kashmir vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jammu

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

ITA 562/ASR/2024[CHANCHALA KUMARI]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Nipun Khanna, C.A
Section 144Section 250Section 69A

assessee in Form No. 36. The main contention of the assessee is that the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal by non-speaking order without allowing proper opportunity of being heard, even though it is seen that the written submissions has been filed in response to the notices issued

Gurpreet Singh Khurana, Jalandhar vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Jalandhar

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

ITA 539/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 143(3)Section 263

delay. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and matter is taken up for adjudication. 4. It is manifest the appellate authority has passed a non-speaking order due to non-appearance of the appellant. The appellant has satisfactorily explained the reasons of his failure to attend and effectively participate. I.T.A

Makhanlal Gattani, Jorhat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Jorhat

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 109/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: the date of processing u/s.143(1) by the CPC. The claim of deduction has been denied only on technical grounds and not on the merits of the claim.

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 234CSection 250Section 80Section 80I

without pointing out any distinguishable feature and when the said decisions also pertained to period of electronic uploading of forms. Such unreasoned and non-speaking order is bad in law. 5. For that the Id. JCIT(A) has erred in not allowing any opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee

Shree Sardar Patel Vishwavidhya Sansthan, Rajkot (Pedhla, Jetpur) vs. The ITO (Exemption) Ward-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 162/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 162/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Shree Sardar Patel Vishwavidhya Sansthan Income Tax Officer (Exemption), बनाम Ward-1, Rajkot, Aayakar /Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring C/O Cdhb & Company, Chartered Accounts, A-707, Rk Iconic, 150 Ft, Ring Road, Nr. Sheetal Park Bus Stand, Opp. The Spire Building, Rajkot - 360006 Road, Rajkot-360 001 स्थायी लेखासं./जी आइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaets0669R (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारितीकी ओरसे/Appellant By :Shri Maulik Kansara, A.R. राजस्वकी ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R. सुनवाईकीतारीख /Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20/08/2025 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) (In Short "Ld.Cit(A)",Dated 06.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 144 Of The Act Dated 28.11.2019.

For Appellant: Shri Maulik Kansara, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

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

Just Blossom Foundation, Andhra Pradesh vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 889/HYD/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.889/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2024-25) Just Blossom Foundation, Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. (Exemption), Hyderabad. Bapatla, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aadtj8267F (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms. G. Kalyani. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 20/08/2025

For Appellant: Ms. G. KalyaniFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 80G

assessee without pointing out any specific deficiency in the documents furnished. It was also submitted that the impugned order is a non-speaking order, violating principles of natural justice. The Ld. AR prayed that the matter be remanded back to the Ld. CIT(E) to consider the ITA No.889/Hyd/2025

Lions Club of Khammam Charitable Trust, Khammam vs. ITO(Exemptions), Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee trust is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 851/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

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

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

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

Tathaiah Swami Ashram Trust, Nellore vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1345/HYD/2024[Not applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Ms. M. Vani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik,CIT-DR
Section 12A

commercial in nature. According to him, the impugned order was ITA No.1345/Hyd/2024 4 passed without proper consideration of the evidence and is a non-speaking order. Accordingly, he prayed that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration after granting adequate

Surajgovind Estates Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 4(2), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1186/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: him and explaining relevant entries in their books of accounts. Needless to say, none of the investors appeared before the Ld. AO in response to such summons. These factors prompted the Ld. AO to make the impugned addition which duly gave credit to amounts shown against two non-resident investors viz. Ms. Pushpa Patel and Mr. Mahendra Kumar Rajivbhai Patel.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

action, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) where also he could not succeed, unfortunately on the basis of a very cryptic and non-speaking order. The Ld. CIT(A) has supported the AO’s findings in holding the issue against the assessee. 1.3 Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached