“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

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 235/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2013-14

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

Vinod Kohli, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 35(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 896/DEL/2021[2012 - 2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Ms. Monalisa Maity, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148(2)Section 292B

Appellant. 2. 2. The comprehensive objections raised by the Appellant against the reasons recorded by the Ld. AO, were outright rejected vide a non-speaking order by falsely invoking the provisions of Section 292B of the Act. Also, the disposal of the reasons was in violation of decision ... before the Hon'ble CIT(A) and the Ld. AO. 5. That the Hon'ble CIT(A) has grossly erred in passing a non-speaking order blatantly rejecting the judicial decisions relied upon by the Appellant by stating that the same were not applicable to her case, without actually placing

Late Vasantben Chandrakantbhai Raval L/H. Dushyantkumar C. Raval, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 2 (2) (6), Rajkot

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

ITA 203/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.203/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dushyankumar C. Raval Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(6), Legal Heir Of Late Vasantben बनाम/ Rajkot, Income Tax Office, New Chandrakantbhai Raval Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Vatiaka, Rajkot- 45 B Panchawati, Street No.1, 360 001 Rajkot-360 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bqqpr 1046 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Hitesh Doriya, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Doriya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR

Section 144(1)(b)Section 250

assessment was carried out u/s 144(1)(b) 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. ITA No. 203/Rjt/2025

Empire Developers and Builders, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 730/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.730/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Empire Developers & V The Income Tax Officer, Builders, S Ward-3(1),Pune. Krishna Dham, 117+121/4B, Lane No.12, Prabhat Road, Pune – 411004. Maharashtra. Pan: Aabfe4291N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ms.Vaishnavi Badwe – Ar Revenue By Shri Ratnakar Shelake – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] For A.Y.2011-12 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act On 23/01/2025 Emanating From The Order U/S.154 Dated 07/01/2019 Of The Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld. Ao Erred In Law & In Facts In Determining The Income Of The Appellant At Rs.35,01,876/-Instead Of Nil As Per The Return Of

Section 111a(2)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 801BSection 80I

deduction under chapter VIA is not allowable.” 6.1 Thus, no specific reason is mentioned in the Order u/s.154 of the Act. It is non-speaking order. There is no application of mind before passing the order u/s.154 of the Act. 6.2 Ld.CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal on the ground

M/S. Howrah Forgings Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 61/KOL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2023-24 M/S Howrah Forgings Ltd., Circle 1(1), Kolkata, 18, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Vs. Kolkata - 700001 Chowringhee Square, (Pan: Aaach6139E) Kolkata - 700069 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak MundhraFor Respondent: Roma Chaudhary, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 41

refer to the decision in the assessee’s own case in ITA No. 60/Kol/2025 for the assessment year 2016-17, where also a non-speaking order has been passed by the Ld. JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai. Accordingly, and on the basis of reasoning given in the assessee’s appeal

Vivek Kaul, New Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal), Udaipur

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

ITA 668/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalcit(A), Mr. Vivek Kaul, Udaipur. Mercantile House-15, Vs. Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi-110001. Pan-Aiepk8894Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/05/2025

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 90Section 90(1)Section 91

particular, being sub-clause (ii) thereof Vivek Kaul vs. CIT(A) 9. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by passing a non-speaking order in respect of the grounds raised regarding the adjustment made by the Ld. ADIT in the Intimation issued under

Pravinbhai Karshanbhai Rathod, Junagadh vs. ITO, Ward-1, Junagadh

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

ITA 289/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 May 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, 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, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. I note that

Tulsidas Chelaram Vidhani, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Jamnagar

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

ITA 837/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 837 / Rjt / 2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) Tulsidas Chelaram Vidhani Income Tax Officer, D – 45, Gandhinagar – Jamnager-61008 Vs. Ward-2(1), Jamnagar - 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adtpv6834F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per,Dr. Arjun Lal Saini Am; Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Dated 29.08.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act, On 19.05.2023. 2. At The Outset Itself, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Assailed The Impugned Order By Contending That The Assessee Could Not Represent His Case Before Ld. Cit(A) & The Order Being An Ex-Parte Order, Stood Vitiated On Account Of Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice. During The Appellate Proceedings, The Notices Were Not Served On The Assessee, Therefore, Assessee Could Not Submit Relevant Documents & Evidences Before The Ld.Cit(A). Now, The Assessee Wish To Submit Some More Additional Evidences Before The Assessing Officer. Tulsidas Chelaram Vidhani V. Ito

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250

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

Komal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 26(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 62/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 144

appeal: 3. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is an ex parte and non-speaking order passed u/s. 144 of the Act without considering the papers submitted by the assessee and also 2 KOMAL, AY 2014-15 without providing adequate opportunity

Pawan Kumar Choudhary, Bankura vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Bankura

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

ITA 418/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 143(3)

assessee submitted that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order and is a non-speaking order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the ld. AR prayed before the Bench to set aside the order

Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Ludhiana, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Waryam Steel Casting Private Limited, Kanganwal Road

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 757/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Muskan Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 148Section 250

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

Waryam Steel Castings Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 715/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Muskan Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 148Section 250

Mayur Jagdishbhai Thakkar, Bhavnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(8), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 1314/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1314/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Mayur Jagdishbhai Thakkar The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Meldima Vali Street Ward-1(8) V/S. Near Hira Sheri Bhavnagar – 364 001 Kharakuva, Bhavnagar Gujarat – 364 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ajipt 3961 E (अपीलाथ)/ Appellant) (*+ यथ)/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 234ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 68Section 69C

principles of natural justice. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in passing a non-speaking order without dealing with merits of the case resulting in violation of provisions of Section

Varsha Girishkumar Pipalava, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajkot

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

ITA 823/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.823/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2017-18) Varsha Girishkumar Pipalava, Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम Shivam Street No.3, Chitrakut 1(1)(5), Rajkot Dham Akshar Marg, Rajkot-360 Vs. 001 Pan/Gir No.Cicpp 9452K "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR

Section 144(1)(b)Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

r.w.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

Ashutosh Kumar Prabhat, Arrah vs. PCIT-1, Patna

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

ITA 564/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 154Section 263

Commissioner. 14. That in *Chirag P. Thummar v. PCIT* [(2024) 159 taxmann.com 1628 (ITAT Surat)], the ITAT held that an ex-parte and non-speaking order under Section 263, passed without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee, is liable to be set aside. FAILURE TO CONSIDER SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCES I.T.A

Sanjay Banik, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward- 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 2352/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2351 To 2353/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16) Sanjay Banik, Vs Ito, Ward-23(1), Hooghly 56, Stn Sarani, Po:Saradapally Ps : Bhadreswar, Hooghly Pan No. :Aegpb 3460 B (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Susanta Shah, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/05/2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Shah, Sr. DR

facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is a non-speaking order, therefore, we condone the delay of 1280 days delay each in filing all the three appeals and appeals are admitted for hearing. 4. During the course

Sanjay Banik, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward-23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 2351/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2025AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Shah, Sr. DR

Khimji Haridas Modi Kautumbik Trust, Station Road vs. ITO Exemption WD 2 Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, ground raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 80/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.79&80/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Ms. Janvi Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld. Sr. (DR)

Section 154

carried out u/s 154 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. I note that

Khimji Haridas Modi Kautumbik Trust, Station Road vs. ITO Exemption WD 2 Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, ground raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 79/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.79&80/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Ms. Janvi Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld. Sr. (DR)

Section 154

Alka Rajen Shah, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 1 (1) (1), Rajkot

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

ITA 151/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiassessment Year: (2019-20) Alka Rajen Shah, Income Tax Officer, 59, Silver Sand B/H. Parijat Party Plot Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot, Vs. Off: 150 Feet Ring Road, Rajkot- 360 Income Tax Officer, M.G. 005 Road, Beside Girnar Pan : Aykps 4510 K Cinema, Rajkot-360 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By. : Shri Raju Manek, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr

For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69