“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

Twin Disc Power Transmisssion Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp Circle 1(3) Che, Chennai

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

ITA 17/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 43B

deduction in regard to gratuity and leave encashment. As the CIT(A)-NFAC has not at all adjudicated on merits and simpliciter non-speaking order without any iota of fact, we set aside the order of CIT(A)-NFAC and remand the same to the file

Ketan Harilal Mehta HUF by Its Karta Ketan H Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-33(2)(2) Mumbai Presently Juridiction With ITO 42(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 770/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleketan Harilal Mehta Huf Vs. Ito-42(1)(1), (By Its Karta Kautilya Bhavan, Ketanmehta)No.B/1101, Bkc,Bandra(E), Siddhi Vinayak Tower, Mumbai-400051. Opp Phoenix Hospital, Chikuwadi, Mumbai-400092. Pan/Gir No. : Aaehk3266N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Nishit Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Shri. P.D. Chougule.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)(Cit(A)) Delhi Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec250 Of The Income Tax Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Nishit Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Shri. P.D. Chougule.Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 68Section 69C

affirming the assessment order is bad in law since the same is sans any independent reasoning and is a non-speaking order by merely relying on certain judgements, the applicability of which to the Appellant's case is under serious doubt. 3. ON MERITS: 3.1. In the facts and circumstances

Chathankandath Usha, Kootanad vs. Income Tax Officer, Palakkad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 605/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Smt. Jamuna Devi, Sr.D.R

Section 250

before us to be, filed subsequently, outstanding before the Tribunal. The assessment for AY 2014-15, though a regular assessment, is per a non-speaking order, without any finding and, therefore, of no assistance. The proceedings under the Act, a public law, it may be appreciated are not adversarial proceedings ... year. Assessment of income for that year at Rs.36 lakhs, as against returned Rs.40 lakhs, as for the current year, per a non-speaking order, would be of no consequence. The burden to prove that a receipt is in the nature of income is on the Revenue. However, once that

Bethala Petropacks Pvt Ltd., (Formerly Known As Deepak Extrusions Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Benglaluru

ITA 284/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

ITA Nos.280 to 284/Bang/2024 Bethala Petropacks Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

Bethala Petropacks Pvt Ltd., (Formerly Known As Deepak Extrusions Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 283/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

objections or replies or documents submitted by the assessee and has proceeded to pass the impugned orders, which is a unreasoned and non-speaking order without considering or appreciating the several contentions urged by the assessee or documents produced by the assessee or hearing the assessee and consequently the impugned

Bethala Petropacks Pvt Ltd., (Formerly Known As Deepak Extrusions Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 282/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

Bethala Petropacks Pvt Ltd., (Formerly Known As Deepak Extrusions Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 281/BANG/2024[2012-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2012-23

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

Bethala Petropacks Pvt Ltd., (Formerly Known As Deepak Extrusions Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 280/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

M/S Devbhumi Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1393/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. CIT, D/R

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 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. The same is not sustainable as per law. 9. In view of the above discussion we do not find justification on the part

M/S.Appollo Tyres Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The Pr CIT, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 72/COCH/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Sri.Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 32A

several aspects of a particular deduction. The onus in such a case though, inasmuch as the AO’s order is a non-speaking order, i.e., to show all the relevant aspects stand explained or are borne out by the record, leading to the inference of their consideration by the assessing

Smt. Renu Gupta, Ambala City vs. ITO, Ward 3, Ambala

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

ITA 12/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Varun Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

present appeal Assessee has raised the following revised grounds: 1. That the Ld. CIT (A) has gravely erred in passing a non-speaking order while confirming the order of Ld. AO below, without going into merits of the case, as well as ignoring/ mis-appreciating the legal position and submissions

M/S Apeejay Education Society, Jalandhar vs. DCIT, C-1 (Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 706/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(b)

inspite of his request to do so. ITA 706/CHD/2022 A.Y.2012-13 2 2. That the learned CIT(A) fell into grave error passing a non-speaking order without commenting/adjudicating on the submissions of the assessee. 3. That the learned CIT(A) fell into grave error by not passing a proper speaking ... without verifying the record that each and every notice has been complied with, issued show cause notice, and imposed penalty by a non-speaking order on her whims and fancies. If we go through the order of the AO, she has reproduced her show cause notices in the order

Dream Valley Barter Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Kolkata

ITA 497/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.497/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dream Valley Barter Pvt. Ltd.….…….…................…...……………....Appellant C/O Narendra Goyal & Co, 16, N.S. Road, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaecd1016E] Vs. Ito, Ward-7(3), Kolkata….....…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 19, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 30, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.10.2023 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’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) For That The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 12,25,33,500/-Assessed By Ld. Assessing Officer (A O) Under Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act') Dated 23/03/2015 On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit Being Share Capital & Premium U/S 68 Of The Act On Irrelevant Considerations & Arbitrary Grounds Thus The Same Be Deleted.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

said amount as unexplained income of the assessee by way of a I.T.A. No.497/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dream Valley Barter Pvt. Ltd non-speaking order and in a mechanical manner. That the assessee had duly furnished all the details such as ITRs, PANs, copies of audited financial statement

M Sons Gems N Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 16(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2759/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhaneshta, Sr.DR

Section 250

same was issued without Document Identification Number in view of CBDT Instruction. 2.That the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in passing the non-speaking order and that too without due application of mind. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in giving finding ... grievance of the assessee in Ground Nos. 2 to 8 is that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing a non-speaking order and that too without application of mind. 5. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that

Rachit Aggarwal (Prop.) Ashok Kumar Gupta & Co., Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ward II(2), Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 858/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.Krishnan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 234BSection 271ASection 68

appellant is dismissed.” 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in passing a non-speaking order in a summary manner by confirming the addition of Rs. 87,95,000/- made on account of cash deposited in the current bank accounts

Savannah Seeds Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 348/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

before learned First Appellate Authority, however, the First Appellate Authority has dismissed assessee’s ground on the issue through a cryptic and thoroughly non-speaking order. Undisputedly, the impugned disallowance has been made on purely ad hoc basis, without pointing out any specific defect or 6 deficiency in the books

Satish Jain, Shyam Enclave vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 47(2), New Delhi, Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate Building

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

ITA 474/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyasatish Jain, Vs. Ito, Ward 47 (2), 14, Shyam Enclave, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 092. (Pan : Aaepj3137D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shivam Malik, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2024 Date Of Order : 12.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri Shivam Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 145Section 145(3)Section 68

taken following Grounds of appeal :- “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in passing a non-speaking order which is against the law. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deciding the appeal ... Against this order, assessee appealed before the ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) passed an order which is rather a non-speaking order as under :- “6.1 I have gone through the Assessment Order and submissions of the appellant. The AO has carried out additions to tune

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Suresh Shantilal Jain, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 102/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, SR. DRFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj K. Shah, A.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154

assessee. Before us, the primary contention of the Ld. D.R. is that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is a non-speaking order and he has simply accepted the contention put forth by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. On going through the facts

Sarita Gupta, Saharanpur vs. ITO Ward 3(3)(5) Saharanpur, Saharanpur

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

ITA 3822/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) of NFAC is bad in law on account of disposal of appeal by way of a non-speaking order and without deciding the grounds of appeal on their merits. 5. That under the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S. A-Kal Televerse Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, TDS, Circle-3(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1167/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Navneeth Kini, CAFor Respondent: Shri Stalin, B, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 270ASection 270A(9)

Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law by not adjudicating each of the grounds and dismissing the appeal with a non-speaking order. 3. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Id. CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and facts