“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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Coimbatore vs. Sri Maheswary Granites (P) Ltd, Coimbatore

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

ITA 3054/CHNY/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3054/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 The Asst. Commissioner Of Sri Maheswary Granites (P) Income Tax, Vs. Ltd., Central Circle – 2, Old No.115, New No.84, Coimbatore Bashyakarlu Road West, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore Pan: Aafcs 9118K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.M.C.R. Mohan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026

For Appellant: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCITFor Respondent: Shri K.M.C.R. Mohan, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

entry though aspiring to enter the appellate arena of Supreme Court. An order refusing SLP or 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. All that it means is that the Court ... Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. AIR 1986 SC 1780, that the implication of the dismissal of SLP via a non-speaking order, without anything more indicating the grounds or reasons of its dismissal, must, by necessary implication, be taken to be that Apex Court had decided only

Nokha Trading LLP, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2397/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Marlecha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 1Section 10Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56(2)(i)

assessment order and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming such incorrect computation. 2.2. The learned AO erred in (a) passing a non-speaking order as the impugned adjustment was made without providing any cogent reasons for the same; (b) not providing a show cause notice as required under

Mps Family Trust, Agra vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Agra

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

ITA 562/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2020-21 Mps Family Trust Vs. Ito, A-25 New Shahganj, Ward-1, Morena Agra Pan : Aaftm7275G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 69

Therefore, the observations made are uncalled for. 3. BECAUSE, the impugned order as passed by the 'CIT(A) cannot be sustained being a non-speaking order in infraction of section 250(6) of the Act and as such, order so made is otherwise too illegal, invalid and a vitiated order

River Bay City Capital Private Limited, Rajahmundry vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-1, Rajamahendravaram

ITA 755/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 147Section 148Section 148A

submitted that the CIT(A) had grossly erred in law and the facts of the case in dismissing the appeal based on a non-speaking order. The Ld. AR, to buttress his contention, had drawn our attention to the order passed by the CIT(A). Page. No 5 I.T.A.No.755/VIZ/2025

Audrey Bernice Roy, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam

ITA 494/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194JSection 44A

18/04/1967 - Shri Raj Kumar (M/S Radhika Sales Corp) vs Income Tax Officer Ward- 3(3), Amritsar on 11 April, 2023 (I.T.A. No.195/Asr/2022). 6. NON-SPEAKING ORDER OF AO-PC BEING INCOME ASSUMED WRONGLY WITHOUT ANY BREAK UP: The Ld AO is not justified in not providing any reason treating

Prasad Ramchandra Patil, Uran, Panvel vs. ITO Ward 3, Panvel

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2340/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 132ASection 144Section 153ASection 69A

them into consideration while deciding the legal grounds raised by the assessee and simply dismissed the legal issues by passing a cryptic and non-speaking order relying on his decision for earlier AY 2014-15. In this view of the matter, we deem it fit, in the interest of justice

Prasad Ramchandra Patil, Uran, Panvel vs. ITO - Ward 3, Panvel

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2339/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 132ASection 144Section 153ASection 69A

Prasad Ramchandra Patil, Uran, Panvel vs. ITO Ward 3, Panvel

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2338/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 132ASection 144Section 153ASection 69A

M/S. R R Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 2743/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2741 To 2743/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Rr Industries Ltd., No.94/95, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaacr 3594 H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr.M.K. Rangaswamy, Ca : Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.Cit : 11.02.2026 : 18.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Hereinafter In Short 'The Ld.Cit(A)'), Chennai-18, Dated 07.08.2025, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter In Short 'Ay') 2008-09 To 2010-11 Confirming The Penalty- Imposed U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'). :: 2 ::

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court. Therefore, the Ld AR asserted that dismissal of SLP in limine by passing a non-speaking order without indicating any reasons for its dismissal implies that the Supreme Court has decided not to exercise its discretion to hear the appeal filed before ... non- speaking order or by a speaking order. Whatever be the phraseology employed in the order of dismissal, if it is a non-speaking order, i.e. it does not assign reasons for dismissing the special leave petition, it would neither attract the doctrine of merger so as to stand substituted

M/S. R R Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 2742/CHNY/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2741 To 2743/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Rr Industries Ltd., No.94/95, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaacr 3594 H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr.M.K. Rangaswamy, Ca : Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.Cit : 11.02.2026 : 18.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Hereinafter In Short `The Ld.Cit(A)'), Chennai-18, Dated 07.08.2025, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter In Short `Ay') 2008-09 To 2010-11 Confirming The Penalty- Imposed U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'). :: 2 ::

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

M/S. R R Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2741/CHNY/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

For Appellant: Mr.M.K. Rangaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court. Therefore, the Ld AR asserted that dismissal of SLP in limine by passing a non-speaking order without indicating any reasons for its dismissal implies that the Supreme Court has decided not to exercise its discretion to hear the appeal filed before ... non- speaking order or by a speaking order. Whatever be the phraseology employed in the order of dismissal, if it is a non-speaking order, i.e. it does not assign reasons for dismissing the special leave petition, it would neither attract the doctrine of merger so as to stand substituted

Shri Veer Shiksha Samiti, Gwalior vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemption Circle, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 422/AGR/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2022-23 Shri Veer Shiksha Samiti V Cit (Exemption) Jain Chhatrawas Hospital Road, Circle, Bhopal Opposite Madhav Dispensry Lashkar Gwalior- 474 009 Pan : Aamts2399Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 12A(1)(ac)

merit. The impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. For removing the ambiguity, that has arisen from non-speaking order of Ld. CIT(E) on the subject of condonation, we, explicitly order and condone the delay in filing the aforesaid application for the registration

Rajiv Parkash Mahna, Darbhanga, Bihar vs. ITO Ward 69(8) Delhi, ITO Ward Delhi

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

ITA 3971/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalasstt. Year : 2012-13 Rajiv Parkash Mahna, Vs. Ito, Ward 69(8), Rajiv Parkash Mahna Security New Delhi Agency, 1St Floor, Above Manglam Tyre House, Lalbagh Bela More, Darbhanga-846004 Bihar (Pan: Aaapm3288Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

non-compliance of the assessee, but Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merit of the case and passed a non-speaking order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we remit back 2 | P a g e the issues in dispute to the file

Satyaprem Rajabhau Dhole, Beed vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 368/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rathi (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 144B(1)(ix)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2

constrained him to pass an exparte order qua the assessee. We observe that the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is a non-speaking order and he has not adjudicated the matter on merits including the legal ground raised by the assessee and set aside the assessment order

Anil Tuteja, Fatehabad vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 780/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR