“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

Madhuri Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-4, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1266/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18 Madhuri Enterprises Vs. Pcit-4 Private Limited New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Pan :..Aaacm8923F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sandeep Goel, Advocate, Kapil Goel, Advocate Department By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit, Dr

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

them. 8. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that no doubt the AO has passed cryptic and non-speaking order. However, the AO has enquired the relevant information relating to indexed cost of acquisition, indexed cost of improvement during the assessment proceedings. The issues raised ... accept the ground raised by the assessee that Assessing Officer has made proper enquiry in the original assessment proceedings even though it is non-speaking order. Accordingly, grounds filed by the assessee are allowed. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open

M/S.Vallabhadas Kanji Ltd, Alappuzha vs. The ACIT, Alappuzha

ITA 505/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhit(Tp)A No.500/Coch/2015 : Asst.Year 2008-2009 It(Tp)A No.12/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.505/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Vallabhdas Kanji Limited The Assistant Commissioner Pb No.4621, Waghjees Road Of Income-Tax, Circle – 1 V. Allappey. Allappey – 688 012. Pan : Aaacv6561E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.R.Krishnan, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2024 Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These Assessee’S Three Appeals It(Tp)A Nos.500/Coch/2015, 12/Coch/2016 & 505/Coch/2016, For The Assessment Years 2008-2009, 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 Arise Against Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Direction Dated 09.09.2015, 23.12.2015 & 03.10.2016, Respectively, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.92Ca & 144C(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act” Hereinafter.

For Appellant: Sri.R.Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

furtherance to the Dispute Resolution Panel, Banalore’s (DRP) directions in F.No.2/DRP/BNG/2015-16 dated 09.09.2015, wherein the latter passed a totally non-speaking order running into four pages, and that too, without even adjudicating the assessee’s corresponding objections in the light of relevant facts and evidences available on record

M/S.Vallabhadas Kanji Ltd, Alappuzha vs. The ACIT, Alappuzha

ITA 12/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sri.R.Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

M/S.Vallabhadas Kanji Ltd, Alappuzha vs. The DCIT, Alappuzha

ITA 500/COCH/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Sri.R.Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Anita Dabas, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3138/DEL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year : 2017-18 Anita Dabas, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1)(1), 302, Arthala Mohan Ghaziabad Nagar, Ghazibad, Nfac, Delhi – 110 001 Uttar Pradesh-201007 (Pan: Agypd9788N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Suvrat Trikha, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2024 Order

For Appellant: Shri Suvrat Trikha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144

assessment year 2017-18. 2. The limited grievance of the assessee in the present appeal is against disposal of the appeal through a non-speaking order, that too, without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. Briefly stated facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. Based on information available ... specific request was made to Ld. First Appellate Authority for providing opportunity of hearing, however, the appeal was disposed off through a non-speaking order without providing opportunity to the assessee to furnish evidences in her support. Ld. DR opposed the aforesaid contention of the assessee. 6. We have considered

Sandeep Ramesh Keni, Maharashtra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1080/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2013-14 Sandeep Ramesh Keni The Commissioner Of B-Wing, Room No. 24, Income Tax Panvel Plaza, Government Of India Behind S. K. Bajaj Vs. Ministry Of Finance, Showroom, Income Tax Department, Panvel, National Faceless Appeal Raigad-410206. Centre, Pan: Avapk7931R Delhi- 110011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For : Assessee By : Shri Mayank Bagla, Adv. A/W Shri. Hiten Lala, Adv. : Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, D.R. Revenue By : 24 . 06 . 2024 Date Of Hearing : 25 . 07 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Bagla, Adv. a/w Shri. Hiten LalaFor Respondent: 24 . 06 . 2024

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 250Section 44

Order has been passed without according any reasons, much less a plausible reason for rejecting the Appeal. 14. The impugned Order is a non-speaking Order and therefore, ought to be quashed and set aside. 15. During the said assessment year the Appellant had business income that comes under 44AD

Leelaram Choudhary, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 1086/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 250Section 68

preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A)/NFAC affirmed the view taken by the AO by passing an unreasoned & Non-speaking order by merely stating that “no satisfying logical explanation has been given by the appellant for this appeal. So, I have no reason to interfere

Anand Annamalai, Salem vs. JCIT, Rnge-I, Salem

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

ITA 165/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.165/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Anand Annamalai, The Joint Commissioner Of Income Kilakkukadu Chettikulam, Tax, Range-1, Naduvalur, Gangavalli Taluk, Salem Selam, Tamil Nadu-636102. [Pan: Afapa1954N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Kathir, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

submissions before the AO. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is also cryptic and vague and hence falls in the category of a non-speaking order. The basis of conclusions drawn by him are not clear. We therefore of the view that the assesse deserves to be given a chance

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Rekha Indravadan Chokshi, Ahmedabad

In the result, the Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 287/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)

facts in not considering fully and properly the explanations furnished and the evidence produced by the appellant. The NFAC has passed a non-speaking order and confirmed the impugned addition simply on the findings given by AO. 1.3 The NFAC has grievously erred in law and or on facts

Rekhaben Indravadan Chokshi, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 270/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)

Birinder Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-43(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2256/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roybirinder Singh, Vs. Dcit, Circle 43 (1), U-174, Dlf Capital Greens, Delhi. Moti Nagar, Delhi – 110 015. (Pan : Aaaps5702P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Order : 10.07.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 18.04.2024 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That On Facts & In Law The Impugned Order Dated 18Th April 2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Cit(A)") Is Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio. 2. That On Facts & In Law The Cit(A) Has Erred In:

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 48

void ab initio. 2. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in: 2 Passing a non-speaking order, and (b) Relying upon decision of Hon'ble ITAT in case of ITO vs Bhanwar Lal order dated 23-08-2019 in ITA No. 948/Jaipur/2018 without appreciating

Florence Dealer Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 9(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 837/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member), Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 250Section 68

Dealer Pvt. Ltd Rs.2,00,00,000/- and he treated the said amount as unexplained income of the assessee by way of a non-speaking order and in a mechanical manner. The assessee had duly furnished all the details relating to the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness

Sujan Mohinder Charitable Trust, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 2(2) Exemption, New Delhi

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 539/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sujan Mohinder Charitable Trust, Vs Ito, 8, Eastern Avenue, Ward 2(2) Exemption, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 065. Pan: Aaats7083F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Vandana Bhandari, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.12.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-40/10374/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 28.12.2019 Passed U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Ito, Exemption, Ward 2(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust Created By A Trust Deed Dated 6Th March, 2. 1978 & Is Registered U/S 12A Of The Act. The Assessee’S Case Was Picked Up For Scrutiny & The Ao Examined The Cash Deposits Of Rs.34,53,730/- During The Demonetization Period & Further Observed That During The Relevant Assessment Year No Return Has Been Filed By The Assessee Either U/S 139 Of The Act Or In Response To Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act. Accordingly, The Assessment Was Completed U/S 144 Of The Act Making An Addition Of Rs.1,22,87,399/- U/S 69A Of The Act On Account Of Following Show Cause Notice:-

For Appellant: Ms Vandana Bhandari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 11Section 119(2)Section 12ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

addition of Rs.1,22,87,400/- u/s 69A of Income tax Act,1961 without giving any reasoning at all and is completely a non-speaking order is totally unjustified and illegal therefore deserves to be quashed. 7. That Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating

Shaheen Frozen Foods, Balapur vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 346/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 44ASection 68

appellant during appeal proceedings and thus disregarding the evidence filed. 8. That the Id. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in passing a non-speaking order by ignoring the submission filed which is against the law. 9. That the Id. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in passing a non-speaking order

Deergold Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O, Ward-6(1), Kol, Kolkata

ITA 499/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Him Relating To The Identity & Financial Worthiness Of The Share Applicants, The Justification Of The Premium Received By The Assessee & Also Relating To The Genuineness Of The Transaction In Question. The Assessee Will Duly Comply With The Notices Issued By The Cit(A) & Will Also Furnish The Required Documents & Evidences Before The Cit(A) Or Before The Assessing Officer, As The Case May Be.

Section 68

Counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) is a non-speaking order. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. However, we find that the impugned order is running into 16 pages

Gopesh Gagjibhai Sutariya, Ahmedabad vs. Ward 3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 413/AHD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 57

matter is proceeded on the basis 7. of grounds of appeal and also that of the order of the CIT(A) which is non-speaking order. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. Heard the Ld. DR and perused

Umesh Sumanlal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 967/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 54

confirmed by NFAC is bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in passing non-speaking order ignoring fact that it is high pitched assessment and required discussion on merits. 3. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming

Rajan Hemalatha, Chennai vs. DCIT-Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal is dismissed

ITA 419/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.419/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Rajan Hemalatha, Flat No.C3, 3Rd Floor, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 61 Golden Kings Court, Tas Enclave, Circle-3(2), Chennai. 10Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai-40. [Pan: Aatph2012G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

order u/s 143(3) (Supra) alludes that same is indeed a cryptic and sketchy order which squarely falls into the category of a non-speaking order. There is nothing on records to indicate as to what details were called for by the AO and how were they examined. Perusal

Niyatiben Alpesh Parikh, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 444/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: The Cit(A) Which Was Decided Vide The Impugned Order. The Ld. Jcit(A) Held That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Not Maintainable U/S. 246 Of The Act. Now The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri Jyotish M. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 237Section 245Section 246Section 250

adjusted without issuing notice u/s 245. 1.5. The ADDL/JCIT erred in passing order without dealing with submission filed and judgment relied. It is non-speaking order. 2. Without Prejudice 2.1. The ADDL/JCIT erred in dismissing appeal without taking care to look at the mechanical adjustment made by AO in communication

Kalyan Pal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-40(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 708/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 708/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Kalyan Pal,…………………………………..……….Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No. 203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aacpp5347B] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………...…Respondent Ward-40(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West). Council House Street, 1St Floor, Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Loviesh Shelley, Jcit, D.R. Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 07, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54F

sufficient to set aside the assessment order and remit the issue to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer. However, after considering the non-speaking order of both the authorities, we deem it appropriate to remit the issues to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for re-adjudication