← 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

DCIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Devidayal Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3851/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roysony India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 22 (2), A – 18, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Area, New Delhi. Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044. (Pan :Aabcs1571Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Order : 12.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assesseeis Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2024Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144Bof The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020- 21Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

application dated 01st September 2025 as under :- “Ground 29 : Without prejudice to other grounds, the Hon’ble DRP has erred in passing a non-speaking order by falling to address the Appellant’s objections regarding : (i) including of Sonal Infosoft and exclusion of Annaie Information Pvt. Ltd. and Saitech Instruments ... lost sight of the fact that vide additional ground no. 29, the Assessee is contending that Ld. DRP has passed a non-speaking order on above issues. Assesse could have challenged the non-speaking nature of Ld. DRP's directions only before Hon'ble Tribunal. No other appellate forum exists

Horizon Dwellings Private Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

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

ITA 77/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriahorizon Dwellings Pvt Ltd V. Pcit, Bareilly, Navjeevan Appartments, Income Tax Department, Opposite Parag Factory, Bareilly (Up)-243001. Badaun Road, Kargaina, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aacch6839F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee submitted that in the absence of any discussion on assessee submission in the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT, the order was non-speaking order, clearly in violation of principle of natural justice and should be quashed in limine. He drew our attention to the written submissions filed

Srinivas Areddy Lakkireddy, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 851/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

have thoughtfully considered the order passed by the CIT(Exemption) and are of the view that the impugned order is a non-speaking order. The CIT(Exemption) has not brought on record any finding or material analysis to substantiate how and in what manner the activities of the trust were

Anil Kumar Sondhi, Gurgaon (Haryana) vs. Peeyush Jain CIT(A)-31, New Delhi

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

ITA 1465/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansh. Anil Kumar Sondhi Sh. Peeyush Jain, 18, Udyogvihar, Cit(A)-31 Phase-Vi, Sector-37, Vs. Gurugram-122001, Haryana. Pan:Aaops3222J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

aware about the proceedings. Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the order of the CIT(A) is ex-parte and non-speaking order. CIT(A) has reproduced the grounds of appeal and paras of AO’s order in his entire appellate order and grounds of appeal. He drew

Amns Ports Vizag Limited (Formerly Known As Essar Vizag Terminals Limited), Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 902/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 263Section 32

cause prejudice to the Revenue is not sustainable. Reason being that the order of the Ld. PCIT is a cryptic, non-speaking order, passed without dealing or for that matter even considering the detailed contentions made by the assessee before him, who we find made out a fair enough case ... gross violation of the principles of natural justice, passed without considering the contentions of the assessee before him and a completely non-speaking order .The impugned order of the Ld. PCIT therefore is clearly not sustainable. 20. In the light of above, the order passed by the ld. PCIT

Valiance Heatlhcare Systems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4607/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram
Section 143(3)Section 144B

needs to be quashed. c. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by passing a non-speaking order in violation of the principles of natural justice and without providing any reasoning or addressing the specific grounds of appeal raised by the appellant.” 3. The relevant facts

Burst Healthcare Private Limited, Pune Maharashtra vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1509/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80

section 80-IAC. The CPC's failure to address the technical problems and the Appellant's grievances is unjust and should be rectified. **Non-Speaking Order by CIT(A)* The CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without addressing the various grounds of appeal and the merits of the case

Bharat Bijlee Limited, Prabhadevi, Mumbai vs. Additional-Joint-Deputy-Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Offcier, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2612/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Bharat Bijlee Limited Additional-Joint-Deputy-Assistant 6Th Floor, Electric Mansion, Commissioner Of Income Tax A M Marg, Prabhadevi, Vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Mumbai-400 025 Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

assessment order certainly cannot be considered to be a cryptic or non-speaking order accepting assessee’s claim. In fact, as against the nil income declared by the assessee, the A.O. has determined the total income at Rs.15,26,53,132/-, after making couple of disallowances. These facts clearly reveal

Viccky Bhalla, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 55(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4005/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumar[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Viccky Bhalla Vs Ito, 5, Prakash Mahal, M.A.Road, Ward No.55(1), 109, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. Delhi-110092. Pan-Aatpb5534D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Prashant Shukla, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.12.2024

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, is liable to be set aside as much as the said order is a non-speaking order, perverse and has been passed without considering the facts available on record and the grounds raised in the appeal filed before it. D. The Id. Commissioner

Bipinbhai Moradiya, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the assessment years before us

ITA 1074/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 147Section 263

Ld.DR submitted that a perusal of the assessment order would demonstrate that the same is very cryptic in nature and it is a non-speaking order in which the critical issue regarding the suspicious unexplained credit has not been discussed. The Ld.DR submitted that in the instant case Explanation

Mansukhlal Maneklal Goyani, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the assessment years before us

ITA 1052/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 147Section 263

Ld.DR submitted that a perusal of the assessment order would demonstrate that the same is very cryptic in nature and it is a non-speaking order in which the critical issue regarding the suspicious unexplained credit has not been discussed. The Ld.DR submitted that in the instant case Explanation

Vishnubhai Valjibhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the assessment years before us

ITA 1051/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 147Section 263

Ld.DR submitted that a perusal of the assessment order would demonstrate that the same is very cryptic in nature and it is a non-speaking order in which the critical issue regarding the suspicious unexplained credit has not been discussed. The Ld.DR submitted that in the instant case Explanation

Suresh Vallabhbhai Kapadiya, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the assessment years before us

ITA 1050/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 147Section 263

Ld.DR submitted that a perusal of the assessment order would demonstrate that the same is very cryptic in nature and it is a non-speaking order in which the critical issue regarding the suspicious unexplained credit has not been discussed. The Ld.DR submitted that in the instant case Explanation

Pravinbhai Jivrajbhai Sa vs. Ani, Ahmedabadvs.the PCIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the assessment years before us

ITA 1049/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 147Section 263

Ld.DR submitted that a perusal of the assessment order would demonstrate that the same is very cryptic in nature and it is a non-speaking order in which the critical issue regarding the suspicious unexplained credit has not been discussed. The Ld.DR submitted that in the instant case Explanation

Kalpeshbhai Savani, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the assessment years before us

ITA 1048/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 147Section 263

Ld.DR submitted that a perusal of the assessment order would demonstrate that the same is very cryptic in nature and it is a non-speaking order in which the critical issue regarding the suspicious unexplained credit has not been discussed. The Ld.DR submitted that in the instant case Explanation

Paresh Nagjibhai Vahanka, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the assessment years before us

ITA 1047/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 147Section 263

Ld.DR submitted that a perusal of the assessment order would demonstrate that the same is very cryptic in nature and it is a non-speaking order in which the critical issue regarding the suspicious unexplained credit has not been discussed. The Ld.DR submitted that in the instant case Explanation

Ramjibhai Ghilabhai Vaghasiya, Ahmedabad vs. The Prcit-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the assessment years before us

ITA 1046/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 147Section 263

Ld.DR submitted that a perusal of the assessment order would demonstrate that the same is very cryptic in nature and it is a non-speaking order in which the critical issue regarding the suspicious unexplained credit has not been discussed. The Ld.DR submitted that in the instant case Explanation

Manojbhai Padaliya, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the assessment years before us

ITA 1045/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 147Section 263

Ld.DR submitted that a perusal of the assessment order would demonstrate that the same is very cryptic in nature and it is a non-speaking order in which the critical issue regarding the suspicious unexplained credit has not been discussed. The Ld.DR submitted that in the instant case Explanation

Rakesh Daga, Kolkata vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 37, Kolkata, Govt. Place (West)

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Rakesh Daga Acit, Circle-37, Kolkata 71, Mondal Street Group 3, Govt. Place (West), Floor, Burra Bazar, Vs. Kolkata-700001, West Bengal Kolkata-700006, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aglpd1610Q Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Joydeep Chakraborty, Ars Revenue By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

even on the remaining parties. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing a very cryptic and non-speaking order. Now the issue before us is whether the assessee has duly discharged his burden by filing the aforesaid evidences before the authorities

Ewow Av Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -9(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3830/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Ewow Av Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of 302, Mahavir Ind. Estate, Income Tax, Off. Mahakali Caves, Circle – 9(2)(2), Andheri East, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai – 400 093 (Pan : Aagca8548J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.M. Bhosale, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 69A

findings given by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) w.r.t. the above ground, thereby passing a non-speaking order. Assessee further, placed reliance on the following judicial precedents wherein it has been held that when cash sales forms part of the turnover offered to tax, no separate addition