← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. A S Cargo Movers Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1796/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1688 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1796 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Tax, New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Corporate Circle-1(1), Block, Navins Presidium, Chennai. Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] आयकर अपील सं./Co No.56 /Chny/2024 (Ita No.1688/Chny/2024) निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Tax, Block, Navins Presidium, Corporate Circle-1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L.Natarajan, Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri K.N.Dhandapani, CIT
Section 250

No.1688, 1796 & CO-56/Chny/2024 :- 13 -: supported by facts on record. The order of the Ld. AO has been found to be totally non-speaking order devoid of any plausible reasoning. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that as per the scheme of the act, deduction

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. A S Cargo Movers Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1688/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1688 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1796 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Tax, New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Corporate Circle-1(1), Block, Navins Presidium, Chennai. Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] आयकर अपील सं./Co No.56 /Chny/2024 (Ita No.1688/Chny/2024) निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Tax, Block, Navins Presidium, Corporate Circle-1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L.Natarajan, Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri K.N.Dhandapani, CIT
Section 250

No.1688, 1796 & CO-56/Chny/2024 :- 13 -: supported by facts on record. The order of the Ld. AO has been found to be totally non-speaking order devoid of any plausible reasoning. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that as per the scheme of the act, deduction

Sri.K.N. Sreekumar, Kottayam vs. The A CIT, Kottayam

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

ITA 114/COCH/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leenalal, Sr.AR

adjournment application was filed by the assessee. However, these appeals are very old and the order of the CIT(A) is a non-speaking order, so the Bench felt that the bench will decide the matter. Therefore, the adjournment application filed by the assessee stands rejected. 5. The learned Departmental

Sri. K.N.Sreekumar, Kottayam vs. The ACIT, Kottayam

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

ITA 113/COCH/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leenalal, Sr.AR

adjournment application was filed by the assessee. However, these appeals are very old and the order of the CIT(A) is a non-speaking order, so the Bench felt that the bench will decide the matter. Therefore, the adjournment application filed by the assessee stands rejected. 5. The learned Departmental

Sri.K.N.Sreekumar, Kottayam vs. The ACIT, Kottayam

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

ITA 112/COCH/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leenalal, Sr.AR

adjournment application was filed by the assessee. However, these appeals are very old and the order of the CIT(A) is a non-speaking order, so the Bench felt that the bench will decide the matter. Therefore, the adjournment application filed by the assessee stands rejected. 5. The learned Departmental

Sri.K.N.Sreekumar, Kottayam vs. The ACIT, Kottayam

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

ITA 110/COCH/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leenalal, Sr.AR

adjournment application was filed by the assessee. However, these appeals are very old and the order of the CIT(A) is a non-speaking order, so the Bench felt that the bench will decide the matter. Therefore, the adjournment application filed by the assessee stands rejected. 5. The learned Departmental

Sri.K.N.Sreekumar, Kottayam vs. The ACIT, Kottayam

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

ITA 109/COCH/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leenalal, Sr.AR

adjournment application was filed by the assessee. However, these appeals are very old and the order of the CIT(A) is a non-speaking order, so the Bench felt that the bench will decide the matter. Therefore, the adjournment application filed by the assessee stands rejected. 5. The learned Departmental

Sri.K.N.Sreekumar, Kottayam vs. The ACIT, Kottayam

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

ITA 108/COCH/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leenalal, Sr.AR

adjournment application was filed by the assessee. However, these appeals are very old and the order of the CIT(A) is a non-speaking order, so the Bench felt that the bench will decide the matter. Therefore, the adjournment application filed by the assessee stands rejected. 5. The learned Departmental

Ramasamy Solaisamy, Virudhunagar vs. ITO, Ncc-2, Madurai

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

ITA 2397/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2397 /Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Ramasamy Solaisamy Income Tax Officer, No.9E, Chairman, Non-Corp., Npsn Arumugam Road, Circle-2, Sivakasi Viruthunagar, Madurai Tamil Nadu-626 123. [Pan: Acvps7427C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

light of arguments put forth by the Revenue. The assessee has contended through ground of appeal that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking order without any application of mind. It is noted that the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are totally confusing. It is also been

Duraiswamy Chinnadurai, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-4(4), Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1782/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1782 /Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2013-14 Duraiswamy Chinnadurai, Income Tax Officer, No.146, N.G.N.Street, Non Corp, Ward-4(4), New Siddhapudur, Coimbatore Coimbatore. [Pan: Acppc1349B] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S.Ramachandran, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064762387(1) Dated 09.05.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2013- 14. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 09.05.2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi. 2.0 The Assessee Has Raised Altogether Seven Grounds Of Appeal, Of Which Grounds 1 To 4 Are Legal Grounds & Grounds 5 To 7 On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri S.Ramachandran, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

order of the lower authorities. 4.2 We have noted that the order of the Ld. AO suffers from the fundamental deficiency of a non-speaking order. He has merely relied upon the information received from investigation wing, seized documents, statement of assessee’s partners and proceeded to draw his unilateral

Shikhar Chand Jain, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur

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

ITA 555/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 555/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shikhar Chand Jain Gali No.3, Ashok Vihar Colony, Near Bansal School, Pandri, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Achpj2931Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 250(6)

that the CIT(Appeals) had grossly erred in law and facts of the case in dismissing the appeal of the assessee vide a non-speaking order without dealing with the specific grounds, based on which, the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for framing the assessment was assailed ... most arbitrarily rejected the same. The Ld. AR submitted that as the assessee had suffered the dismissal of his appeal based on a non-speaking order, which thus, had rendered the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) as suffering from a mistake apparent from record, therefore, the matter

Shilak Ram, Haryana vs. ITO Ward 4, Rohtak

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3312/DEL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.3311 To 3313/Del/2025 (Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dinesh Kumar, Dcit, 407, Nilgiri Apartments, Central Circle-07, Alaknanda, New Delhi-110019. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aiopg3637K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nirbhay Mehta, Adv. Department By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: All These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Three Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [Cit(A) In Short] All Are Dated 20.03.2025 For Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254Section 263Section 68

rs.18,28,660/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the IT Act on account of suspense account by passing an ex-parte non-speaking order without specifically adjudicating the ground of appeal taken by the appellant that the assessment year under consideration is an unabated assessment and thus

M/S Modinagar Rolls Ltd., Modinagar vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3455/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Modinagar Rolls Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Major Asha Ram, Tyagi Circle-1, Road, Modinagar Ghaziabad Pan :Aabcm0137C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. Sh. Rajkumar, Adv. Department By Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

therefore, illegally sustained the addition of Rs 21,04,058/- . She has however, dismissed the ground of appeal in this regard with a non-speaking order holding the ground to be not maintainable which course is apparently illegal. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Bhawani Construction Pvt. Ltd., Howrah

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

ITA 1649/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 264Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

notice under Section 143(2) was not served, in the proceeding under Section 143(3) the assessee's case was completed by a non-speaking order dated 31.03.2015 by adding back a sum of Rs. 6.75 Crores as bogus Share Capital under Section 68. The assessment was set aside

M/S. Sbs Brothers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1895/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1895/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S.Sbs Brothers, Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.44/55, Strotten Muthiah Street, Tax Sowcarpet, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai-79 Chennai [Pan: Aahfs6119B]

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anita, Add.CIT
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

light of material available on records. At the outset, we have noted that the order of the Ld. AO is a totally non-speaking order without any application of mind. He has summarily rejected assessee’s explanations holding them as unsatisfactory without placing on records

M/S. Sbs Agencies, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1894/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1894/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S.Sbs Agencies, Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.18, Audiappa Naicken Street, Tax Sowcarpet, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai-600 079. Chennai [Pan: Aalfs9107M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D.Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anita, Add.Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anita, Add.CIT
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

light of material available on records. At the outset, we have noted that the order of the Ld. AO is a totally non-speaking order without any application of mind. He has summarily rejected assessee’s explanations holding them as unsatisfactory without placing on records

Tirupati Enterprise, Silvassa vs. ITO, Ward Silvassa, Silvassa

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

ITA 1064/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1064/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Tirupati Enterprise Income Tax Officer, Ward- 24, Centre Point, Vapi-Silvassa Silvassa, Tokarkhada, बनाम Road (Amli), Silvassa-396 230, Samarvarni, Silvassa, Dadra & Vs Dadra & Nagar Haveli (Ut) Nagar Haveli & Daman & [Pan : Aadft 9754 B] Diu-396 230 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 254(1)

NBFC. The assessee filed appeal before Ld.CIT(A) in the year 2020. The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in a non-speaking order. In para-4 of impugned order, Ld. CIT(A) recorded that assessee requested for adjournment in January, 2021 and that no other notices were complied

P.Venkatesh, Namakkal vs. Itd, Ward 1, Tiruchengode, Tirchungode

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for ITA No

ITA 2433/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2432/Chny/2024, निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2011-12 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2433/Chny/2024, निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13 P.Venkatesh The Income Tax Officer, No.5, Street No.6, Ward-1, Kumaresapuram, Tiruchengode Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu-637211 [Pan: Adjpv1236F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Ms. R.Anita, Addl.Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of : 10.01.2025 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.A
Section 147

grounds for non-compliance before the lower authorities. We have noted from the order of the Ld. AO that the same is a non-speaking order wherein addition has been made only on the premise of non-compliance by the assessee. There is nothing on record to indicate

P. Venkatesh, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward 1, Tiruchengode, Tirchengode

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for ITA No

ITA 2432/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2432/Chny/2024, निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2011-12 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2433/Chny/2024, निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13 P.Venkatesh The Income Tax Officer, No.5, Street No.6, Ward-1, Kumaresapuram, Tiruchengode Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu-637211 [Pan: Adjpv1236F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Ms. R.Anita, Addl.Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of : 10.01.2025 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.A
Section 147

grounds for non-compliance before the lower authorities. We have noted from the order of the Ld. AO that the same is a non-speaking order wherein addition has been made only on the premise of non-compliance by the assessee. There is nothing on record to indicate

Anand Basantani, Mandla vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandla

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

ITA 7/JAB/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur09 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12 Anand Basantani, Mandla V. Income Tax Officer, C/O Gurukripa Rice Industries, Mandla Padav Road, Mp-481661. Aayakar Bhawan, Mandla, Mp-481661. Pan:Arqps8543G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri H. S. Modh, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 09 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09 01 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri H. S. Modh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148

regarding hearing of the appeal. It is noticed that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) by way of non-speaking order. The relevant contents of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: - “The appellant was sent notices of hearing/submission on 20.04.2021 & 24.08.2022. There