non-speaking order — 793 case laws

Reshma Kamal Abichandani, Manila Philippines vs. Asst. Commissioner, International Taxition Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3499/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 Reshma Kamal Abichandani, Vs Acit, E-367, Ramesh Nagar, Circle (1)(1), Delhi – 110 012. Delhi. Pan: Bcqpa3616R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Dua, Ca & Shri J.K. Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Prajna Paramita, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2024 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Circle International Taxation 1(1)(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao) For Assessment Year 2018- 19. 2. Heard & Perused The Record.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Dua, CA &For Respondent: Ms Prajna Paramita, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 285B

reasoned findings, if not by evidences. However, here in the case in hand order passed under clause (d) of section 148A is a non-speaking order. The AO should have justified the said order pointing out why the reopening proceedings against the wife should be continued in spite

Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-(Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 1266/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G(5)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE “A” BENCHES, BANGALORE BEFORE MRS. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR

Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-(Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 1265/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G(5)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE “A” BENCHES, BANGALORE BEFORE MRS. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR

Vijay Vinod Duragkar, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 339/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

appreciate have been done without objectively considering all the objections of the Appellant and which can at best be deemed to be a non-speaking order. 9 Vijaya Vinod Duragkar 23.9. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court IOT Infrastructure and Eng. Services Ltd. Vs. ACIT

Nippon Audiotronix Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 16(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2137/DEL/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2023-24] M/S Nippon Audiotronix Acit, Private Limited, Circle-16(1), N-191, Greater Kailash-I, Vs New Delhi New Delhi-110048 Pan-Aaacn2163L Assessee Revenue

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 194Q

disallowance is further bad in law and on case facts having been confirmed in non-consideration of the submitted case facts, vide a non-speaking order, simply by placing reliance on the judgements, the ratios of which are not at all applicable on facts of the case.” 3. Brief facts ... consideration of the same. 7. That the Ld. JCIT (A) disallowed the claim in complete non- consideration of the case facts, vide a non-speaking order, simply by placing reliance on following judgements, the ratios of which are not at all relevant to the present case facts.  Chowranghee Sales Bureau

Citizencreidt Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4040/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 133ASection 69A

Fincraft. It is also important to note here that the CIT(A) while upholding the additions made by the AO has passed a non-speaking order without giving any specific findings both on the legal contentions as well as on the merits of the case. In view of these discussions

Tamura Elcomponics Technologies Private Limited, Uttar Pradesh vs. National E-Assessment Center, Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1291/DEL/2024[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shivansh Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Anand, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 250(6)Section 37

making the disallowance unsustainable in law. 5. That the ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and failed miserably by passing a non-speaking order and solely relying on the remand report of the AO without considering the merits of the case making the order bad in law and liable

Shailesh Kumar Singh, Gurugram vs. ITO Ward 81(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1518/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2020-21 Shailesh Kumar Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-05, Near Ats Kocoon, Ward-81(2), Shobha International City, Tds Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector-109, Bajghera Sector-3, Vaishali, Gurgaon, Ghaziabad – 201 010 Haryana-122017 (Pan/Tan: Dels73570A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Gera, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR

Section 200ASection 250Section 254

further find that Ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order has not at all discussed the merit of the case and passed a non-speaking order, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5.1 In the background of the aforesaid factual matrix and in the interest of justice

Anand Sawroop, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Nahan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 709/CHANDI/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Jhamba, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50Section 50C

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in passing a non-speaking order. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that basis information that the assessee has sold certain immovable property during the F.Y. 2009-10 relevant

G Sekar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 3(5), Chennai

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

ITA 1417/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1417/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 M/S. G.Sekar, Huf, Income Tax Officer, No.1, Palat Madhavan Road, Non-Corp, Ward-3(5), Mahalingapuram, Chennai. Chennai-34 [Pan: Aadhg6924J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri J.Vignesh, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri J.Vignesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 129Section 143(3)Section 250

material available on records. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) has been found to be suffering from deficiencies of being a non-speaking order. In para-5 of the order Ld. CIT(A) has stated as under:- :- 3 -: “…. Even though Form-35 mentions that he appeallant relied upon

Kalindee Estates Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 770/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Oct 2024AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

The ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Shell Energy India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S. Hazira Lng. Pvt. Ltd.), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 558/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 Shell Energy India Pvt. Ltd. The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Office No.2008, Westgage Vs Ahmedabad. Block-D, Makarba, Sg Highway Ahmedabad 380051. Pan : Aaach 9143 C Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Shell Energy India Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs (Formerly Known As M/S.Hqzira Lng P.Ltd.) Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaach 9143 C (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate, Shri Vishal Kalra & Ss Tomar, Ars. Revenue By : Shri (Dr.) Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Guptathese Are Cross-Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 23.09.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Ita No.435 & 558/Ahd/2022

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri (Dr.) Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 250Section 92D

passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in passing a non-speaking order on grounds pertaining to the adjustment made by the AO with respect to the availing of services in relation to operations of LNG storage

Shell Energy India Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 435/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 Shell Energy India Pvt. Ltd. The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Office No.2008, Westgage Vs Ahmedabad. Block-D, Makarba, Sg Highway Ahmedabad 380051. Pan : Aaach 9143 C Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Shell Energy India Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs (Formerly Known As M/S.Hqzira Lng P.Ltd.) Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaach 9143 C (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate, Shri Vishal Kalra & Ss Tomar, Ars. Revenue By : Shri (Dr.) Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Guptathese Are Cross-Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 23.09.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Ita No.435 & 558/Ahd/2022

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri (Dr.) Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 250Section 92D

passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in passing a non-speaking order on grounds pertaining to the adjustment made by the AO with respect to the availing of services in relation to operations of LNG storage

Atpadi Education Societiys Employee Sahkari Path Mandal Limited, Dighanchi Road, Atpadi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5 Sangli, Sangli

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 918/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.918/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Atpadi Education Societiys Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Employee Sahkari Path Sangli Vs Mandal Limited, Dighanchi Road, Atpadi, Sangli, Maharashtra, 415301 Pan No. Aaaaa6827A Appellant/Assessee Respondent/Revenue

Section 144Section 250Section 80P

passing order against the principle stare decisis, rule of consistency, audi alteram partem, without application of mind, and unjust hurried manner by non-speaking order and without providing fair opportunity of hearing and personal opportunity of being heard which was specifically requested by the assessee, which are contrary

Kasree Devi, Mawana Meerut vs. ITO Ward-1(1)(3), Ayakar Bhawan, Bhainsali Ground, Meerut

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1019/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 250Section 250(4)Section 69A

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

Viral Vinodchandra Joshi, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

Accordingly, these four appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 612/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.609, 610 & 611/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively Hema Viral Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Admpj 6455 B & आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.612/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Viral Vinodchandra Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abjpj 6812 H अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 69A

Assessing Officer us. 144 of the Act. Both the lower authorities erred in not appreciating that the impugned order, an unreasoned and non-speaking order was framed without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant that is in breach of principals of natural justice ... Assessing Officer u/s. 144 of the Act. Both the lower authorities erred in not appreciating that the impugned order, an unreasoned and non-speaking order was framed without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant that is in breach of principals of natural justice

Hema Viral Joshi, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

Accordingly, these four appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 611/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.609, 610 & 611/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively Hema Viral Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Admpj 6455 B & आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.612/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Viral Vinodchandra Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abjpj 6812 H अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 69A

Assessing Officer us. 144 of the Act. Both the lower authorities erred in not appreciating that the impugned order, an unreasoned and non-speaking order was framed without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant that is in breach of principals of natural justice ... Assessing Officer u/s. 144 of the Act. Both the lower authorities erred in not appreciating that the impugned order, an unreasoned and non-speaking order was framed without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant that is in breach of principals of natural justice

Hema Viral Joshi, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

Accordingly, these four appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 610/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.609, 610 & 611/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively Hema Viral Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Admpj 6455 B & आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.612/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Viral Vinodchandra Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abjpj 6812 H अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 69A

Assessing Officer us. 144 of the Act. Both the lower authorities erred in not appreciating that the impugned order, an unreasoned and non-speaking order was framed without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant that is in breach of principals of natural justice ... Assessing Officer u/s. 144 of the Act. Both the lower authorities erred in not appreciating that the impugned order, an unreasoned and non-speaking order was framed without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant that is in breach of principals of natural justice

Hema Viral Joshi, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

Accordingly, these four appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 609/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.609, 610 & 611/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively Hema Viral Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Admpj 6455 B & आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.612/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Viral Vinodchandra Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abjpj 6812 H अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 69A

Assessing Officer us. 144 of the Act. Both the lower authorities erred in not appreciating that the impugned order, an unreasoned and non-speaking order was framed without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant that is in breach of principals of natural justice ... Assessing Officer u/s. 144 of the Act. Both the lower authorities erred in not appreciating that the impugned order, an unreasoned and non-speaking order was framed without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant that is in breach of principals of natural justice

Mstc Ltd, Kolkata vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Cir-1(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 623/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Prasun Bhattacharya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, CIT, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 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

“non-speaking order”

Leading authorities on non-speaking order

Judgments citing non-speaking order

Reshma Kamal Abichandani, Manila Philippines vs. Asst. Commissioner, International Taxition Delhi

Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-(Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore

Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-(Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore

Vijay Vinod Duragkar, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(4), Nagpur

Nippon Audiotronix Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 16(1), New Delhi

Citizencreidt Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai

Tamura Elcomponics Technologies Private Limited, Uttar Pradesh vs. National E-Assessment Center, Delhi, New Delhi

Shailesh Kumar Singh, Gurugram vs. ITO Ward 81(2), New Delhi

Anand Sawroop, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Nahan

G Sekar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 3(5), Chennai

Kalindee Estates Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

The ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Shell Energy India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S. Hazira Lng. Pvt. Ltd.), Ahmedabad

Shell Energy India Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Atpadi Education Societiys Employee Sahkari Path Mandal Limited, Dighanchi Road, Atpadi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5 Sangli, Sangli

Kasree Devi, Mawana Meerut vs. ITO Ward-1(1)(3), Ayakar Bhawan, Bhainsali Ground, Meerut

Viral Vinodchandra Joshi, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

Hema Viral Joshi, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

Hema Viral Joshi, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

Hema Viral Joshi, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

Mstc Ltd, Kolkata vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Cir-1(1), Kolkata.