“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

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 3335/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

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

Anil Ramniranjan Kejariwal, 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 3334/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

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

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

Kumaresan Bhagavathiperumal Pillai, Kanyakumari vs. The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Tuticorin

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

ITA 1357/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1357/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Kumaresan Bhagavathiperumal Pillai, The Ito, 12-5 G/4, Kumaragam Garden, International Taxation Ward, Channel Street, Vadakkoor, Thovalai, Tuticorin. Kanyakumari 629 302. [Pan: Ahepb 2348 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Chennai-16, (Hereinafter In Short ‘The Ld.Cit(A)’), Dated 31.07.2024 For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter In Short ‘Ay’) 2018-19. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of ‘224’ Days In Filing The Appeal. Considering The Period Of Delay & Reasons Pleaded, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication. Kumaresan Bhagavathiperumal Pillai :: 2 :: 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel 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 Ld.Dr, Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit, Objected Admission Of Additional Ground Raised By The Assessee.

For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam

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

Vijay Israni, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6, Delhi

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

ITA 752/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

finding of the AO and opinion has been formed through the already available facts d) The Ld. CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking order as repetitions of facts do not form basis of any opinion. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S. Bata India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DDIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1073/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 115PSection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 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

Bigstar Hotels Resorts Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 5(1), New Delhi

ITA 3351/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 250

impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 09.07.2024 is completely devoid of any reasons and is a non-speaking order, passed after non consideration of the Appellant's detailed submissions on law and on merits in the matter whereby it has held vide Para 4.3 of its order

M/S Anil Kumar Sunil Kumar, Allahabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax Central Circle, Allahabad.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 25/ALLD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad24 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 144

that the Assessing Officer has framed the assessment order ex-parte and the impugned appellate order passed by the learned CIT(A) is non-speaking order. He submitted that the assessee did not get proper opportunity to present the case before the learned CIT(A). The learned A.R. for assessee

Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Dehradun vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 324/LKW/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147

framed the assessment order ex-parte and the impugned appellate order passed by the learned CIT(A) is also ex-parte and non-speaking order. He submitted that the assessee did not get proper opportunity to present the case before the learned CIT(A). The learned A.R. for assessee further

Sankarpur Jamiah Salafiah Bahrul-Uloom, Murshidabad vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

ITA 1069/KOL/2025[----]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025

Section 124(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iv)

paper book running into 97 pages before the Bench. The Ld. AR argued that the Ld. CIT(E) has passed a non-speaking order and has simply doubted the cash donations even when such donations were duly received and disclosed in the accounts. Regarding the rejection of application under Section

Sankarpur Jamiah Salafiah Bahrul-Uloom, Murshidabad vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

ITA 1068/KOL/2025[----]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025

Section 124(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iv)

Rafikbhai Ajijbhai Virani, Jamnagar vs. The Assessement Unit NFAC Income Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 141/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 141/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Rafikbhai Ajijbhai Virani बनाम The Assessment Unit, National Steet No.2, Near Navnala, Faceless Assessment Center, Income /Vs. Gulabnagar Tari Hanuman Tax Department Road, Jamnagar-361007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ascpv 1519 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sankar Bakshi, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Order (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 18.06.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Dated 19.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 2. “Reopening U/S 148A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) 1. The Learned The National Faceless Appeal Centre [“The Cit(A)”] & The Assessment Unti, Income Tax Department (“The Ao”) Erred In Fact & In Law In Initiating Proceedings U/S 148 Of The Act Without Issuing Notice U/S Ita No. 141/Rjt/2025 A.Y.17-18 Rafikbhai A Virani

For Appellant: Shri Sankar Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A

r.w.s.144 r.w.s. 144B 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

Rakesh Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 212/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CA and Shri Vikas Yadav AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

noncompliance without addressing the issue on merits The Ld CIT(A) has erred in summarily dismissing the assessee's appeal, by passing a non-speaking order, without making any mention of the various grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in his appellate order and without discussing the merits

Fehmicare Foundation, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad

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

ITA 734/HYD/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025

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

Fehmicare Foundation, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad

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

ITA 733/HYD/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025

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)

Kolan Vanaja, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 297/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

unable to persuade ourselves to concur with the manner in which the CIT(A) had summarily disposed of the appeal vide a non-speaking order. Accordingly, in all fairness, we restore the matter to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to re-decide the appeal vide a speaking

A.C.I.T Circle-2(1), Rajkot vs. Sanskar Developers, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas cross objection (CO ) filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 242/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 242/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2015-16) Assisstant Commissioner Of Income- Sanskar Developers Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No. 311, Shop No. 1, Shri Raj Complex, 1- Vs. 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Madhav Park, B/H. Vijay Hostel, Course Road, Rajkot – 360001 150Ft Ring Road, Rajkot – 360004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ackfs 2310 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rashmin Vakariya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 250

overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is very cryptic and non-speaking order. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the matter should be remitted back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) with a direction

Animal Warriors Conservation Society, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 728/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 12A

assessee- society in principle is eligible for registration under section 12AB of the Act. However, since the learned CIT(E) has passed a non-speaking order, without considering relevant evidences filed by the assessee, we set-aside the order of the learned CIT(E) and restore back the issue

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Akash Deep Sethi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and at the same time, the cross objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 4973/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanincome Tax Officer, Vs. Akash Deep Sethi, Delhi. B-236, Derawal Nagar, Model Town, Delhi – 110 009. (Pan : Abyps8933P) Co No.26/Del/2025 (In Ita No.4973/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Akash Deep Sethi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-236, Derawal Nagar, Delhi. Model Town, Delhi – 110 009. (Pan : Abyps8933P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Aman Garg, Ca Ms. Kirti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2025 Date Of Order : 16.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

addition of ' 25% of such unexplained purchases which was reduced to 10% by the Tribunal. Even though, the High Court did not approve non-speaking order passed by the Tribunal, it confirmed the Tribunal's order on net profit rate on the ground that GP rate declared that year

Green Environment Charitable Trust, Vadodara vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 983/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2025

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80G(5)

facts in not considering fully and properly the explanations furnished and the evidence produced by the appellant. The impugned order being a non-speaking order, it is liable to be quashed and set aside. 2.1 The Ld CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding

Gujarat State Police Housing Corpn. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 575/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 575/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Gujarat State Police Housing The Deputy बनामVs. Corporation Limited, Commissioner Of B/H Lokayukta Bhavan, Income Tax, Chh Road, Gandhinagar Circle, Sector10/B, Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar-382010. Pan: Aaacg5532C

For Appellant: Shri S N Divetia with Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 250