“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

Ravi Prasad Boyapati, Krishna District vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CA

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) had grossly erred in law and facts of the case in disposing of the appeal by a non-speaking order. Elaborating on his contention, the ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) had without giving any cogent reason, merely upheld the order ... impugned order was assailed before him. The ld.AR submitted that the assessee had suffered the dismissal of the appeal based on a non-speaking order, therefore, the same in all fairness, we restore the file with a direction to re-adjudicate the same. 11. Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon

Pasala Jojamma, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 172/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Ms. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri D. Praveen, Sr.AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

ld.AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing, submitted that the assessee had suffered the dismissal of the appeal vide a non-speaking order. Elaborating on her contention, Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A), without adverting to the specific grounds based on which the impugned additions made

Maharashtra Cricket Association, Pune vs. ACIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 975/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1387 & 975/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Maharashtra Cricket Association, Acit(E), Pune Gahunje Stadium, At Post Gahunje, Thehsil-Maval, Pune-412101 Vs. Pan : Aaatm2192D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 16-01-2025 Date Of 11-04-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Dated 22.04.2024 & 12.03.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Pertaining To Assessment Years (“Ays”) 2011-12 & 2012-13. Since The Issue(S) Involved Are Identical, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar &For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 11Section 2(15)

including the immediate preceding year i.e. AY 2009-10. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking order without himself dwelling into the merits of the case and summarily rejecting the assessee’s appeal based on the observations and findings ... case (supra). We also find some force in the arguments of the Ld. AR that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking order by simply upholding the observations and findings of the Ld. AO without himself going into the merits of the case and has also failed

Maharashtra Cricket Association, Pune vs. ACIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 1387/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar &For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 11Section 2(15)

Mohd Riyazuddin, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 243/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.243/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Mohd. Riyazuddin Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Pan:Ahupm6145M Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Siddharth Toshnival राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Lv Bhaskar Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Revision Order Dated 18/01/2024 Of The Learned Pr. Cit (Central) Hyderabad The A.Y.2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Advocate Siddharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: : Shri LV Bhaskar Reddy, DR

Section 153DSection 263Section 68

lakhs found during the search is generated from the business of real estate. Therefore, accepting the claim of the assessee while passing a non-speaking order which is rather sub- silentio on the very issue and subject matter of the assessment is definitely falls in the category of lack

Praksh Pushparaj Golcha, Andheri (W) vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4417/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarpraksh Pushparaj Golcha, V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of 6A, Shivkrupa H Wing, बनाम Income Tax– 24(3), Old Nagardas Road, M/O Finance, Income Tax Andheri(W), Department, National Faceless Mumbai-400 069, Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpg9404H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Mr.Ruturaj H. Gurjar,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani,(Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

without giving detailed reasons in the order, on various grounds of appeal before him. We further hold that he erred in passing a non-speaking order on each of the points which arose for his consideration and he failed in discharging the statutory obligation to state the reasons

The Motihari Central Cooperative Bank Ltdove Bna, Motihari vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 557/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT, DR

Section 250

rival submissions. As it is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex parte and by a non-speaking order, however, in the interest of justice and so as to grant the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate its case, the issues in this appeal

DCIT, Cirlce- 1(1) (1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. American Express Banking Corp. (India Branch), New Delhi

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 165/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

argued that the Ld. CIT(A) had not given any specific justification for allowing 50% relief. The impugned order could be termed as non-speaking order as it did not contain any categorical finding with reasoning in its operating part. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the assessee’s appeal

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bhushan Steel Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1469/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarsandeep Kumar Gautam, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2)(3), Ghaziabad House No. 921, Mange Ram Jatan House, Ghaziabad (Pan: Ambpg5029J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 Order Per Shamim Yahya, Am : This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi On The Following Grounds:- 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing An Exparte Order Without Considering That In This Case, There Was No Deliberate Attempt On The Part Of The Appellate To, Not To, Reply To The Notices Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 144

further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has also passed the exparte order, and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing a non-speaking order, even without going into the merits of the case. It was further submitted that assessee is a senior citizen and due to non-functioning

Premjibhai Danabhai Bhankhodiya, Morbi vs. Incoem Tax Officer, Morbi

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

ITA 776/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.776/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Premjibhai Danabhai Bhankhodiya, Vs. The Ito,Ward-4, “Sonprem”, Sanghavi Street, Morbi. Near Jain Upashraya, Darbar Gadh, Morbi-363641. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agxpb0025F (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

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, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 6. Considering the above facts

Siddharth Suryakant Deshmukh, Mumbai vs. ITO-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 3019/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144oSection 234ASection 250Section 69Section 69A

Rs.1,10,31,195/- it was submitted by the ld DR that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a very cryptic and a non-speaking order and it is not clear as to the basis and the reasoning adopted by the Ld. CIT(A) while passing the impugned order wherein ... Rs.1,10,31,195/-, we agree with the contention of the ld DR that 1d CIT(A) has passed a cryptic and non-speaking order and which doesn't bring out the reasoning and basis of deleting the addition so made by the AO and therefore, in all fairness

ITO-4-2-1, Mumbai vs. Siddharth Suryakant Deshmukh, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1205/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144oSection 234ASection 250Section 69Section 69A

submitted by the ld DR that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a very cryptic and a non-speaking order and it is not clear as to the basis and the reasoning adopted by the Ld. CIT(A) while passing the impugned order wherein the said addition has been deleted ... agree with the contention of the ld DR that ld CIT(A) has passed a cryptic and non-speaking order and which doesn’t bring out the reasoning and basis of deleting the addition so made by the AO and therefore, in all fairness, the matter need to be remitted

Ramineni Venkateswarulu, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Narasaraopet

ITA 538/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

dealing with the additional documentary evidence that was filed by the assessee under Rule 46A and had summarily dismissed the appeal vide a non-speaking order, therefore, the same in all fairness be set aside with a direction to him to re-adjudicate the appeal after addressing the assessee

Infosoft Global P Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 501/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(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

Sharvan Kumar, Kalanaur vs. ITO, Ward 4, Rohtak

ITA 1088/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhsharvan Kumar Vs. Ito S/O. Sh. Attar Singh, Vpo Ward-4, Gudhan, Tehsil & P.O. Income Tax Office, Rohtak Kalanaur, Rohtak, Haryana Haryana Pan: Cbjpk8102M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Navin Gupta, Adv Revenue By Sh.Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/03/2025 Order

Section 148

That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in not considering the reply and arguments taken by the appellant and erred in passing a non-speaking order. 5. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- made by the Ld. AO by treating

Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur vs. Addl.CIT, Exemption Range, Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2202/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, /And Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Dayainder SinghFor Respondent: Sidhu

Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 234B

facts of the case, contention of AO and submissions made by the appellant. AO has made the addition by a very cryptic and non-speaking order without mentioning anything about the issue involved, facts of the matter or any legal and accounting provision under which the same has been added ... case and submissions of the appellant, this addition is deleted for the reason that it is made without any basis, by passing a non-speaking order. This ground is allowed. Ground No. 7 - Disallowance of Depreciation of Rs. 1,69,33,620/-: In the assessment order, the AO has stated

Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur vs. DCIT, Exemption Range, Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2201/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, /And Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Dayainder SinghFor Respondent: Sidhu

Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 234B

Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur vs. Addl.CIT, Exemption Range, Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2200/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, /And Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Dayainder SinghFor Respondent: Sidhu

Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 234B

Shri Khakhrechi Panrapole, Gujarat vs. CIT(Exemptions), Ahmedabad, Gujarat

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

ITA 873/RJT/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Mar 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.873/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2024-25) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Khakhrechipanrapole, Vs. Cit( Exemption) Khakhrechitaluko Maliya, Room No. 609, Floor- 6, Morbi - 363630 Aaykar Bhawan(Vejalpur), Anand Nagar, Ahmedabad - 380015 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatk1996P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Pungaliya, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18 /03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19 03/2025

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungaliya, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 12A(1)(ac)

consider the same and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(E ), 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. As we have noted that the assessee had filed

Rakesh Jivtran Bhaktani, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Rajkot

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 918/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.917&918/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17 & 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Rakesh Jivtranbhaktani, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 157, Refugee Colony, Aaykar Bhawan,Vatiaka Junction Plot, Rajkot-360001 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bkvpb7955H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld. Sr. (DR)

Section 144Section 147

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 ITA NO.917 & 918/RJT/2024 Rakesh JivtranBhaktant the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. The fact