← 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

The Endometriosis Foundation of India, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 358/HYD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Respondent: : Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

before the Tribunal. 3. The Learned Authorised Representatives of the assessees submitted that, the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E) are non-speaking orders. It was contended that the Ld. CIT(E) has not pointed out any specific deficiency in the documents submitted by the assessees

Iiit-H Data I-Hub Foundation, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 351/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Respondent: : Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

before the Tribunal. 3. The Learned Authorised Representatives of the assessees submitted that, the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E) are non-speaking orders. It was contended that the Ld. CIT(E) has not pointed out any specific deficiency in the documents submitted by the assessees

Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Seva Sangham, Saipuram vs. CIT (Exempitons), Hyderabad

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

ITA 349/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Respondent: : Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

before the Tribunal. 3. The Learned Authorised Representatives of the assessees submitted that, the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E) are non-speaking orders. It was contended that the Ld. CIT(E) has not pointed out any specific deficiency in the documents submitted by the assessees

Sri Kartikeya Gana Sabha Trust, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad

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

ITA 348/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Respondent: : Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

before the Tribunal. 3. The Learned Authorised Representatives of the assessees submitted that, the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E) are non-speaking orders. It was contended that the Ld. CIT(E) has not pointed out any specific deficiency in the documents submitted by the assessees

Jesus Grace Glory Gospel Ministries, Jangaon vs. CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad

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

ITA 345/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Respondent: : Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

before the Tribunal. 3. The Learned Authorised Representatives of the assessees submitted that, the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E) are non-speaking orders. It was contended that the Ld. CIT(E) has not pointed out any specific deficiency in the documents submitted by the assessees

Designer Stone Impex, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1272/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

upon him to dispose of the grounds of appeal based on which the impugned order was assailed before him, had based on a non-speaking order upheld the assessment order. The ld.AR submitted that as the assessee firm had suffered the dismissal of its appeal based on a non- speaking

Surendraba Raghuvirsinh Chudasama, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 938/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, ld.SR.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69A

r.w.s. 147 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. 9. The ld. DR for the Revenue

Venkataratnam Tiriminchi, Nellore vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nellore

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

ITA 434/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Shri S. Prasad Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Vishnu Priya, Sr.D.R
Section 147

unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the manner in which the appeal had been disposed of by the CIT(A) vide a non-speaking order for want of prosecution. Our aforesaid view that the CIT(A) is obligated to dispose off an appeal vide a speaking order and cannot ... 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

Trident Coatings Pvt.Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 Trident Coatings Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.1/590, Gst Road, Income Tax, Vandalur, Corporate Circle-3(1), Tamil Nadu-600 048.. Chennai [Pan: Aacct3000A]

For Appellant: S/Shri S.Sridhar & G.Tarun AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri N.Rajakumar, Addl.CIT
Section 40

disallowance was unwarranted. It was also submitted that the Ld.AO Page - 2 - of 4 ITA No. 3 /Chny/2025 and Ld.CIT(A) have passed non-speaking orders without any application of mind. It was accordingly requested that the matter may be considered for remission to Ld.AO for verifying the nature

Islauddin, Jodhpur vs. ITO-Phalodi, Phalodi

ITA 800/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 May 2025AY 2017-18
Section 115BSection 69A

sustaining the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- made by the AO, ignoring the written submission filed by the assessee and passing a non-speaking order. “ 3. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that the appellant is engaged in trading of agricultural equipments, PVC pipes, hardware ... sustaining the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- made by the AO, ignoring the written submission filed by the assessee and passing a non-speaking order - The assessee maintains complete books of accounts. Each and every sale is vouched by sale bill. As is customary in case of this trade

Madhu Dwivedi, Sonepat vs. ITO Ward -3, Sonepat

ITA 8037/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 143(3)Section 148

Income Tax (Appeal), Rohtak, has grossly erred in partially affirming the addition without giving any reason at all and is completely a non-speaking order. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Rohtak, has erred in both in law and facts in partially confirming the addition on adhoc

Madhu Dwivedi, Sonepat vs. ITO Ward - 3, Sonepat

ITA 8036/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 143(3)Section 148

Income Tax (Appeal), Rohtak, has grossly erred in partially affirming the addition without giving any reason at all and is completely a non-speaking order. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Rohtak, has erred in both in law and facts in partially confirming the addition on adhoc

Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth, Surat vs. Idcit Central Circle-2(1)(1), Surat

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 84/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.84/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ A-202, Parshwa Darshan Co- Income Tax V/S. Op. Housing Society Central Circle-2(1)(1) Opp.Navyug College Surat – 395 001 Surat – 395 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afxps 2264 Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca Revenue By : Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 07/05/2024 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As The Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of The Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

notice of hearing on some wrong email-id. He has further demonstrated that even the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is a non-speaking order. The Ld.CIT(A) has not discussed any facts or issues involved in this case and has not given any findings on merits. The action

Transworld Educare Private Limited, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-7, Pune

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

ITA 838/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.838/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.Y. Chavan
Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

there is no representation on behalf of the assessee. Ld.CIT(A) has also not dealt with merits of the case and passed a non-speaking order without adhering to the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. 3. Considering all these factual aspects, the intention of the assessee

Solufeed Plant Product and Services Private Limited, Nashik vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC, Nashik

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

ITA 283/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.283/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

however on perusal of the record with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative observe that the impugned order of ld.CIT(A) is a non-speaking order as ld.CIT(A) has summarily dismissed the assessee’s appeal observing as follows : 2 Solufeed Plant Product and Services Private Limited “1. The grounds

Rajesh Kanjibhai Koriya, Upleta vs. The ITO Ward 1 (2) (2) Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 165/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.165/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Dipen Sukhdia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR
Section 144Section 250

consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 144 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is a non-speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. As per assessee, his income

Om Sri Krishna Goshala Welfare Society, Khammam vs. CIT (Exemption), Ward 1(3), Hdyerabad

ITA 94/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2025AY 2025-26
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

viii). Ledger accounts for major expenditure items. However, the CIT(Exemptions), despite providing the aforesaid documents by the assessee society, vide a non-speaking order dated 07.12.2024, once again rejected the application stating that "no substantial activities which are charitable in nature are being carried out by the assessee. which ... consider the documents already filed and provide an opportunity to the assessee, the CIT(Exemptions) has once again passed a cryptic and non-speaking order, wherein the application filed by the assessee society for regular registration u/s 12AB has been rejected by merely stating that no substantial activities which

Kurnool Medical College Graduate Trust, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

ITA 180/HYD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2025

Bench: Us:

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

documentation electronically on 09.11.2024, Pages 99-101 of APB. 4 Kurnool Medical College Vs. CIT (Exemption 7. However, the CIT (Exemptions) passed a non-speaking order dated 09.12.2024 rejecting the application filed by the assessee trust for registration under section 12AB of the Act. The CIT(Exemptions) in his order ... deficiency had concluded that no charitable activities were being carried out by the assessee trust, and thus, summarily based on a non-speaking order rejected the application filed by the assessee trust for registration u/s 12AB of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee trust was carrying

Himalayan Endeavour Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Siliguri

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 237/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Roma Chaudhary, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

issues in this appeal. 5 ITANos.235-237/Kol/2024 5. We may also mention here that as the order passed by the appellate authority is a non-speaking order, this Tribunal invoking its suo moto powers u/s.254(1) of the Act, grants stay to the demand raised for three assessment years under consideration

Himalayan Endeavour Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Siliguri

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 236/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Roma Chaudhary, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

issues in this appeal. 5 ITANos.235-237/Kol/2024 5. We may also mention here that as the order passed by the appellate authority is a non-speaking order, this Tribunal invoking its suo moto powers u/s.254(1) of the Act, grants stay to the demand raised for three assessment years under consideration