“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

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 917/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

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

Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Panchkula vs. ITO, Ward 3, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the addition is restricted to Rs

ITA 80/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271FSection 68

untenable. 3. That the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre has further erred in passing a non-speaking order of the principles of Natural Justice. 4. The National Faceless Appeal Centre has illegally, wrongly, arbitrarily and without any basis sustained addition

Sahrdaya Tbii Hub, Irinjalakuda vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions, Ernakulam

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

ITA 647/COCH/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2024-25

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Tribunals had set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(E) since the same was passed on technical grounds and also the orders are non-speaking orders. The Surat Tribunal also held that the mistake is not a fatal and could be considered in appropriate sub-clause of section

Sahrdaya Educational Trust, Irinjalakuda vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Ernakulam

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

ITA 646/COCH/2024[2024-24]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2024-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2024-25

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar P J

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Vijayarani Purushothaman, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Bangalore

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

ITA 793/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 69

detail and not passed a reasoned order and therefore we are of the view that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is a non-speaking order and on that basis the said order of the Ld.CIT(A) is liable to be set aside with the direction to Ld.CIT

Subrata Mukherjee, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 471/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

records we find that in the instant appeal, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte and a non-speaking order and the assessee failed to get sufficient opportunity to file the submissions and file relevant documents in support of the grounds raised before

Mithu Pal, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 50(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1768/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

appellant, including the affidavit and facts on record, without providing any reason. This renders the order of the CIT(Appeals) a non-speaking order, legally unsustainable, and liable to be quashed and cancelled. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant provided comprehensive details regarding

Satia Industries Limited, Muktsar, Punjab vs. DCIT, ACIT Circle 1, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 527/ASR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 527/Asr/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: S/Shri Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Shri K. Mehboob Ali Khan, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80

since, the DRP had erred on facts and in law in affirming the draft assessment order by passing a cryptic and non-speaking order, without judiciously considering the entire material and the submissions / objections filed by the assessee. 2. That the AO has erred in fact and in lawin confirming

Dharmishthaben Shaileshbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(6), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2008/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vayawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri J. L. Bhatia, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

that Ld. CIT(Appeals) while passing the appellate order has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on ex-parte basis by passing a non-speaking order, without taking into consideration the detailed statement of facts and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. The counsel for the assessee submitted ... facts of the case and the contents of the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals), we observe that he has passed a non-speaking order, without either discussing the detailed submissions relating to the facts of the assessee’s case (as given by the assessee the statement of facts

Mr Harilal Santhosh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 33(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 774/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 774/Mum/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Mr. Harilal Santhosh, 47/48, Kakad Kunj, Dwarkesh Park, Kandivali (West), Mumbai-400067. [Pan : Ajjps 0926 P] अपीलार्थी/Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer Ward- 33(1)(5), Room No. 915, 9Th Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee By Sh. Bharat Gandhi, Ar राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Sh. Anil Gupta Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 27.02.2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)"] Dated 03.01.2024 For

Section 115BSection 144Section 156Section 249(4)(b)Section 254(1)Section 69A

assessee for the want of deposit of self-assessment tax. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed and un-admitted in a non-speaking order. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that matter may be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the appeal

Novanet India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward Ward 15(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4505/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Shah a/w Jainam

Section 112Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 201Section 250Section 9(1)(vii)

facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in passing a non-speaking order u/s 250 which is bad in law. b) On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in passing

Janaradan Singh(HUF), Buxar vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Patna

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

ITA 478/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). It Was Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Without Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee Has Adjudicated In An Exparte Manner & Did Not Consider The Evidence Submitted Before Him. In Reply, The Ld. Sr. Dr Supported The Order Of Ld. Cit(A). We Have Considered The Rival Submissions. A Perusal Of The Submissions Produced By The Assessee Shows That The Assessee Has Submitted Substantial Evidence Before The Ld. Cit(A). The E-Proceedings Acknowledgment Shows As Follows:

assessee but has gone on to hold that the assessee has not proved any of the transaction. This being so as a non-speaking order has been passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the issues in the appeal are restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for re- adjudication

Skyscraper Realbuild Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2174/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2174/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Skyscraper Realbuild Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ First Floor, 115, Ward-1(1)(1) V/S. Satyamev Aawas, Ahmedabad Coconut, Kudasan, Gandhinagar-382421. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaica8859J अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr-DR

Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

raised by the appellant. The absence of independent findings renders the order unsustainable. 7.2 It is also settled principle of law that a non-speaking order, which fails to examine the submissions of the appellant, is liable to be set aside. 7.3 In view of the above, we find that

Ratnesh Kumar Jain, Shivpuri vs. Income Tax Officer Ashok Nagar, Gwalior

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

ITA 278/AGR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra14 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144rSection 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRABENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Team Universal Infratech Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.970/Hyd

ITA 969/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri G. Manjunatha

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201

substantiate it’s claim of mismatch in inventories with supporting documentary evidence. We find that the learned CIT(A) has passed a cryptic, non-speaking order and has accepted the contention of the assessee without giving any cogent reasons. We, therefore, remand the matter in issue back to the file

Jayaram Balasubramanian, Dindigul vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 2301/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2301/Chny/2024 िनधा(रण वष(/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Jayaram Balasubramanian, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 743/5, Duraikulam Shop, Income Tax, Madurai Road, Non-Corporate Circle 4(1), Pallapatty Village Begampur Post, Chennai. Dindigul – 624 001. [Pan: Aegpb 9719R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (+,थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G. Tarun, Advocate +,थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT

Section 68

hereinafter in short “AY"). 2. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in passing a cryptic non-speaking order without considering the Jayaram Balasubramanian :: 2 :: application filed by the assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-Tax Rules

M/S. Slk Software Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range-6N, Bangalore

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

ITA 933/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 14A

erred in facts and in law in summarily dismissing the assessee's appeals for the assessment years under consideration, by passing a non-speaking order, without mentioning the various grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in his appellate order and without discussing the merits of the case. Therefore

M/S. Slk Software Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range-6, Bangalore

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

ITA 932/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 14A

Saraswati Sangha, Barpali, Bargarh, Odisha vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical

ITA 486/CTK/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Jan 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iv)

before us. 3. During the course of hearing, ld. AR submitted that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(E) is a non-speaking order thereby rejecting the application under section 80G, without specifying particular deficiencies or examining the extensive documentation already submitted, which amounts to violation of principles

Empire Builders, Ernakulam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ernakulam

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

ITA 166/COCH/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR

Section 142ASection 28Section 69C

various grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore we are of the opinion that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is a non-speaking order and on that score, we are setting aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remit the issue to the file of Ld.CIT(A) with