“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

M/S Ufv India Global Education (Society), Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Exemption Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 516/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 516/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S Ufv India Global Vs. The Dcit Exemption, Circle-1, Education, बनाम Chandigarh Ggd Sanatan Dharma College, Ector 32-C, Chandigarh (U.T.) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcu7691M अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 8

Appeal)-NFAC has erred in not appreciating the fact that the penalty order as passed by the AO was illegal, void and non-speaking order. 3. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal)-NFAC in para 6.1.1 of his order has factually erred in observing that the assessee while filing its return

M/S.the Kararinakam Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kannur vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Kannur

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

ITA 111/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Senior DR

Section 40Section 80P

Income tax (Appeals) has passed the order dismissing the appeal without considering the legal grounds raised in the appeal by passing a non-speaking order, which is patently against the provisions of the Income tax Act. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has not even attempted to took into

Tata Consumer Products Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

second opportunity to the AO. B. The AO did not dispute any of the reasons given by the appellant and passed a non-speaking order in a cryptic manner, thus violating the concept of natural justice It may be noted that the appellant had filed a detailed submission citing several ... therefore made the ad- dition under section SOC in a cryptic manner. The order as passed by the AO is epitome of a non-speaking order which itself cannot be appreciated in law. In the light of facts submitted by the appellant that had impacted the fair market value

Tata Consumer Products Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

DCIT CC 1(1), Mumbai vs. Rajendra S Karnavat, Mumbai

ITA 3067/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sunil HirawatFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr.DR

Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL

M/S. Utkal Builders Ltd., Bhubaneshwar vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed not only on legal ground of violation of principles of natural justice but also on merits

ITA 605/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.604&605/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S Utkal Builders Ltd…....…….…....…………….......…....………....Appellant Plot No.777, Virayatan Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneshwar, Khorda, Orissa – 751007. [Pan: Aaacu5502C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata……............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Ar & Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For Different Assessment Years Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.02.2024 & 14.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. Ita No.604/Kol/2024 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. 2. Ita No.604/Kol/2024 - The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 131Section 250Section 68

assessee, but, simply upheld the order of the Assessing Officer in mechanical manner. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is a non-speaking order and the same is not sustainable as per law. 7.2 In view of discussion made above, the action of the Assessing Officer as well

M/S. Utkal Builders Ltd., Bhubaneshwar vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed not only on legal ground of violation of principles of natural justice but also on merits

ITA 604/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Section 131Section 250Section 68

Muthusami Balasubramaniam, Tiruchengode vs. Ward 1, Tiruchengode

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1664/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील िं./Ita No.1664/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Muthusami Balasubramaniam, Income Tax Officer, No.34, Agraharam Street, Vs. Ward-1, Tiruchengode, Tiruchengode, Namakkal, Tiruchengode, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu-637 211. [Pan: Agcpb1728Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Assessee By : Shri Sricharan, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit ुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Sricharan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 250

enquiry before arriving at his conclusions. The order of the Ld. AO has been found to be very cryptic, in coherent, and non-speaking order having no application of mind. The order of the Ld. AO is predominantly based upon conjectures and surmises. Before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, appellant

Krishnappa Paramesh, Bengaluru vs. Office of the Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 413/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Koushik, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

erred by passing the order without verifying all our submissions comprehensively which the authority is legally bound by, amounts to non-speaking order. Total tax effect : Rs.63,86,053/- 3. Facts of the case are that the Assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961 were initiated on the basis

Sri Rangarao Nadipally, Karimnagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Karimnagar

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

ITA 516/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2014-15 Sri Rangarao Nadipally Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karimnagar Circle – 1 Karimnagar Pan : Acbpn3816E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M Prudhvi Raj Appeared For Shri D.Sashank, Ld.Ar Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Ld.Dr 05.09.2024 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri M Prudhvi Raj appeared for Shri D.Sashank, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Ld.DR

Faceless Appeals Centre (hereinafter referred to as NFAC) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The NFAC erred in passing a non-speaking order without considering the evidences and details filed by the Appellant thereby not providing a proper opportunity of being heard. 3. The NFAC erred

Dhananjaya Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 898/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

violation of the principles of natural Justice, apart from the quantum of addition involved. The NFAC has made casual approach and passed a non-speaking order, so that it is liable to be quashed. 2.1 The Id. NFAC has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not appreciating

Bipinbhai Kantilal Vakta, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 837/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

ACIT, Circle-10(1), C.R Building, ITO, Delhi vs. Hari Om Retail Private Limited, Shakti Nagar, Delhi

ITA 1700/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vibhu Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

account the same being unexplained excess cash balance.This makes the assessment order a non-speaking order when the AO, after having issued so many notices u/s 142(1) and calling for various details and statements, does not consider the factual submissions made by the Appellant and proceeds to make addition

Shreenath Developers, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(5), Vadodara

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

ITA 909/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Upadhyay, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 68Section 69A

erred in facts and in law in summarily dismissing the assessee’s appeals for the assessment year 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

Makkal Kattral Maiyam, Thiruvannamalai vs. ITO Exemptions Ward 3, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 915/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 6

that there is no discussion in the assessment order as to the claim of expenditure made by the assessee. Therefore, it is a non-speaking order. It is well settled that “the reasons are heart-beat of any judicial/quasi judicial order”. In absence of reasons assigned, the order is vitiated

Makkal Kattralmaiyam, Thiruvannamalai vs. ITO Exemptions Ward 3, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 913/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.913 & 915/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. Makkal Kattral Maiyam, The Ito (Exemptions), Mavattamagamai-E Service Centre, Ward-3, Jaibeen Nagar, Chennai. Vengikaal, Thiruvannamalai-606 603. [Pan: Aactm 5036 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 6

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Faridabad, Income Tax Department vs. Ludhiana Sangrur Infra Road Private Limited, Hisar

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

ITA 3179/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurugram and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, vide order dated 16/08/2023 decided the appeal and accepted the contention of the Assessee. Reference is drawn to para 4.4 at pg.98 of his order.

Section 132Section 133ASection 148Section 40A(3)

incorrect and baseless and thus the said addition is not at all deserved. 20.3 Violation of Principles of Natural Justice of passing of Non-speaking order. While framing the impugned assessment order, the Ld AO has made violations of Principles of Natural Justice e.g the assessment order is non-speaking ... also failed to issue a final show cause notice before making the said addition. These are discussed in detail here under: a. Non-speaking order The Ld AO completely ignored the merits of the submissions of the assessee and passed a non-speaking order by adding the entire amount with

M/S Mspl Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 374/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. J. D. Mistri, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

been decided by implication in a case where SLP is dismissed in limine. The dismissal of SLP in limine by a non-speaking order does not close the door to move before other forum such as before High Court under Article 226. The reference may be made to the following

M/S Mspl Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 373/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. J. D. Mistri, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

M/S Mspl Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

ITA 372/BANG/2011[2006-07]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. J. D. Mistri, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D