“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

Chellappan Sankaranathan, Sivaganga vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle, Madurai

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

ITA 930/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.930/2025 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20)

For Appellant: Mr.N.V. Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

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

Ravi Kumar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle Int. Tax 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 1783/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 8

circumstances of the case the order passed by the learned AO is bad in law as the same is a non-speaking order passed summarily rejecting and not considering, deliberating and dealing with all the contentions/rebuttals made, evidences placed on record and the case laws cited in its true spirit

Samachar Manyata Association for Research & Training, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 387/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.386/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: - आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.387/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: - Samachar Manyata Association For The Commissioner Of Income Tax Research & Training, (Exemptions), Old No.19, New No.72, Marshall Road, Chennai. Egmore, Chennai-600 008. [Pan: Abfcs2266P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri P.M.Kathir, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 12ASection 80G

averments of the appellant assessee. We have also noted a case of apparent non- application of mind and passing of a non-speaking order by the Ld.CIT(E). We have noted that on page 7 of the order he has reproduced some fund flow analysis from which he has drawn

Samachar Manyata Association for Research & Training, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 386/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 12ASection 80G

Income Tax Officer, Kurukshetra vs. Jasvir Singh, Village Diwana Tehsil Pehowa

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 665/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 665/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ito, Jasvir Singh, Kurukshetra बनाम Village Diwana Tehsil Pehowa, Vs. Distt. Kurukshetra 136128 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cnqps4895G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 12.09.2023 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 40A(3)

ITAT because the CIT (A) had not considered the submission of the appellant and confirmed the addition by passing a non-speaking order. The main contention of the appellant are as under: -  As Para 3.1 and 3.2 of the order, the AO has confirmed the genuineness of the purchases

Bethany Chapel, West Godavari Dist vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 319/VIZ/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Aug 2025

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S (Accountant Member)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

have thoughtfully considered the order passed by the CIT(Exemption) and are of the considered 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

Repakavari Choultry, Palakol vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward), Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 318/VIZ/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Aug 2025

Bench: us by raising following grounds of appeal:

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(AC)

facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the learned CIT (E) is liable to be set aside, being a non-speaking order and therefore, the matter is remanded back to the file of the learned CIT (E) to decide the case afresh in accordance with law after

Barri Nageswararao and Palepu Raghavendrarao Memorial Charitable Trust, Turangi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

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

ITA 295/VIZ/2025[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Aug 2025

Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्यायिक सदस्य

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

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

ITA 880/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.880/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2023-24) M/S. Indishine Foundation, Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. (Exemption), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan:Aagci9967D (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.N. Nishanth Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr.Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 08/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Indishine Foundation (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(E)”), Dated 19.03.2025 For The A.Y. 2023-24. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri K.N. Nishanth Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr.Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 8Section 80G

submissions made by the assessee and does not record any specific deficiency, contradiction, or violation of Section 80G conditions. Such a non-speaking order, passed without dealing with the objections and documents submitted by the assessee, is not sustainable in law. 7. We also find merit in the submission

Bhargavi Sajja, Telangana vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 774/HYD/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

paper book). The Ld. AR argued that the Ld. CIT(E) failed to consider the aforesaid submissions and supporting documents and passed a non-speaking order without identifying any specific defect or inconsistency in the activities of the trust. It was submitted that the rejection was mechanical and devoid

Ranjeet Kumar (Individual), Begusarai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2 (1), Begusarai

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

ITA 198/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 282Section 69

Principle of Equity and Natural Justice. 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal by passing a non-speaking order and without discussing the grounds of appeal on merits which is in violation of Principle of Natural Justice. 4. For that ... sale deed attached with statement of facts and grounds of appeal in Form No 35 filed by the appellant and has passed a non-speaking order confirming the demand in the Assessment order.” 5. The Ld. AR requested that the matter may be remanded back

Bigala Krishna Murthy Foundation, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 11/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.11/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2024-25) M/S. Bigala Krishna Murthy Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. (Exemption), Hyderabad. Foundation, Hyderabad. Pan:Aakcb1687M (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M. Venkatram Reddy, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Bigala Krishna Murthy Foundaton (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(E)”), Dated 24.10.2024 For The A.Y. 2024-25. Ita No.11/Hyd/2025 2

For Appellant: Shri M. Venkatram ReddyFor Respondent: : Shri Narendra Kumar Naik

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

vague and unsupported by any material or reasoning. In our considered view, the rejection of registration under Section 12AB based on such a non-speaking order cannot be sustained in law. The matter deserves to be reconsidered by the Ld. CIT(E) after examining the submissions and financials filed

Dar E Aqram Eductaion Charitable Trust, Pune vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 739/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.738 & 739/Pun/2025 Dar E Arqam Education Charitable Trust, Galli No. 9, Sr. No. 54, Shivneri Nagar, Kondhwa Khurd, Pune-411048 Vs. Ito, Exemption, Ward – 1(2), Pune Pan: Aactd0454F अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-07-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 18.03.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune (“Cit(E)") Rejecting The Application(S) For Grant Of Registration U/S 12A & Approval U/S 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The "Act") Filed On 29.09.2023 & 30.09.2023 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. 2. Both The Appeals Have Been Filed With A Delay Of 293 Days Before The Tribunal For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. On Perusal Of The Same, We Are Satisfied That The Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional Or Deliberate But Has Occurred For The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit. After Hearing Both The Sides, We Are Of The View That The Delay Is Attributable To The Sufficient Cause. We, Therefore, In Light Of The Decisions Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc) & In The Case Of Inder Singh Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Reported In 2025 Livelaw (Sc) 339, Condone The Said Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal. 3. In Ita No.738/Pun/2025, The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(E) In Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12A Of The Act While

For Appellant: Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

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

erred in cancelling the validly granted provisional approval under Section 80G(5), despite the appellant fulfilling allsubstantive conditions for final registration. Mechanical and Non-Speaking Order 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(Exemption), Pune has erred in passing a non-speaking

Dar E Arqam Education Charitable Trust, Pune vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 738/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

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

erred in cancelling the validly granted provisional approval under section 80G(5), despite the appellant fulfilling allsubstantive conditions for final registration. Mechanical and Non-Speaking Order 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(Exemption), Pune has erred in passing a non-speaking

Riaz Ali, Tiruvarur vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward 2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 790/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.790/2025 (धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Riaz Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.2-A, Puliyangudi North (International Taxation)-2(1), Street, Koothanallur, Tiruvarur, Chennai. Tamil Nadu-614 101. [Pan:Auepr2020H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam,Jcit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Final Assessment Order Dated 06.01.2025, Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Intl Taxn Ward 2(1) Che, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2018-19 U/S.147 R.W.S. 144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru Dated 26.12.2024. 2 Ita No.790/Chny/2025 (Ay 2018-19) Riaz Ali

For Appellant: Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam,JCIT

Section 127Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54

Abm Knowledgeware Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 3460/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 80G

used to reopen the assessment proceeding is bad in law. 4. The Learned PCIT erred in issuing a non-speaking order as it fails to provide any specific test or verification approach that the Ld. Assessing Officer should have mentioned in the assessment order. 5. The Learned PCIT erred

M/S. Kuvam Plast Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 7(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2389/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito Ward 7(3) M/S Kuvam Plast Pvt. Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee Square, 37, Darpanarayan Tagore Street, Esplanade, Chowringhee North, Vs. Kolkata-700006, West Bengal Bow Barracks, Kolkata-700069 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadck8653K Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, DR

adjudication of the issue. Moreover, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. AO has passed a very cryptic and non-speaking order. Therefore, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that in the interest of justice and fair play the appeal may be restored to the file

Pandyan Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Madurai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle, Chennai

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

ITA 945/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.945/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Pandyan Automobiles Private Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, No.48 Bye Pass Road, Madurai, Corporate Circle, Tamil Nadu-625 016. Madurai. [Pan: Aadcp5203C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R.Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 : घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R.Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

Kuppusamy Muthuvel, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Chennai

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

ITA 944/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.944/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Kuppusamy Muthuvel, The Income Tax Officer, No.23/1 Arasu Elango Street, Ward-2(4), Eripalayajm Po, Udumalpet Tk, Tirupur. Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-642126 [Pan: Axepm0652R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. R.Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

Anil Ramniranjan Kejriwal, Mumbai vs. Circle 24(1), Mumbai

In the result appeals filed by the assesse for assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 stands allowed

ITA 3336/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara()

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 68

objections were raised on 31.01.2022 due to the ongoing COVID -19 Pandemic. He thus submitted that the objections were disposed of by non-speaking order dated 11.02.2022 whereas the time limit for passing the assessment order was 31.03.2022. 3.5 On merits of the case, the Ld.AR submitted that the transactions