“non-speaking order”

Vatsal Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 139/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vatsal Tradecom Private Limited Plot No.259, Near Mittal House, Samta Colony, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaecv3688G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

counsel had uploaded adjournment letter (supra), the Ld. CIT(Appeal) had, however, proceeded with and disposed off the appeal based on a non-speaking order. Backed by the facts above, the Ld. AR submitted that the matter in all fairness be restored to the CIT(Appeals) with a direction

Vijay Ramsingh Goyal, Surat vs. I.T.O., Ward 2(2)(5), Surat.

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Vijay Ramsingh Goyal, I.T.O., A-201, Surya Prakash Residency, Ward-2(2)(5), Vs. Beside Agrasen Bhavan, City Light, Surat. Surat-395007 (Gujarat). Pan No. Acupk 0294 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

recorded in para 4 of order of ld. CIT(A). The assessee in his submission submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in passing non-speaking order on his objection. The assessment was reopened on incorrect fact that no return of income was 3 Vijay Ramsingh Goyal Vs ITO filed, whereas

M/S. Riya Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss) A No. 01/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Riya Real Estates Private Limited 308, 3Rd Floor, Ceejay House, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai (Mh)-400 018 Pan : Aadcr8769B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

aforesaid facts, submitted that there was no justification for the CIT(Appeals) to have disposed of the appeal on the basis of a non-speaking order without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee company. 23. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short, ‘DR’) relied

Kamaldeep Harcharanjitsingh Dang, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Surat

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

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.408/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Hearing) Kamaldeep Harcharanjitsingh Vs. The Ito, Dang, Ward – 3(1)(1), 79A, Silver Oak Farm, Road Surat No.4, Ghitorni, New Delhi – 110030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acepd3949B (Appellant) (Respondent)

impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 13. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee could not plead his case

Bharatbhai Naginbhai Patel, Ankleshwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Bharuch

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

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.393/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Bharatbhai Nagjibhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, 392, Nishal Faliu, Nava Haripura, Ward- 2(4), Sajod, Ankleshwar, Bharuch, Bharuch, Gujarat – 393020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bpppp4227M (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ashutosh P. Nanavaty, Ca Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 16/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

r.w.s.147 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the NFAC/ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. I note that assessee should not be penalized

The Pr CIT Circle 5 (1), Bhopal vs. M/S M.P.Warehousing & Logistic Corporation, Bhopal

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

facts and circumstances might differ for year to year and CIT(A) has not stated facts and, therefore, has passed a non-speaking order without deciding or bringing the facts on record to support the contention of allowing assessee’s claim. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances

Goyal Knitfab Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1(1)(2), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.455/Srt/2023 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Goyal Knitfab Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of Block No.505, National Highway Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Vs No.8, Palsana, Surat-394315 Surat, Room # 108, Info@Goyalknitfab.Com Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Pan No: Aabcg 3803 B Gate, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and by a non-speaking order. 2.1 The appeal may be kindly restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh hearing and opportunity. 2.Personal hearing may be granted. Goyal Knitfab Pvt.Ltd

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jodhpur

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

facts in not at all discussing and dealing with the submissions made before him. The Id. CIT(A) further erred in passing a non-speaking order in violation of mandate of Sec. 250(6) requiring a well-reasoned and speaking order from him. But theId. CIT(A) completely failed

Jhumuklal Panigrahi, Bastar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Jagdalpur, Bastar

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.92/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Jhumuklal Panigrahi Prop. M/S. Jhumuklal Panigrahi & Sons, Ward No.9, Bhahmanpara, Main Road, Karitgaon, Dist. Bastar (C.G.)-494 221 Pan : Bjnpp2195L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Jagdalpur, Dist. Baster (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Ward-Jagdalpur, Baster and disposed off the appeal in the name of the deceased assessee, and that too based on a non-speaking order. Backed by the facts above, the Ld. AR submitted that the matter be restored to the CIT(Appeals). 7. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative

Firoj Jamshedji Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 2(3)(6), Surat

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.532/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Firoj Jamshedji Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ground Floor At & Post Mora Ward – 2(3)(6), Parsiwad, Moragam, Surat Surat – 394510 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bhjpp9558B (Appellant) (Respondent)

r.w.s.147 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex- parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 7. Since, in assessee’s case

Pradhan Transport Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT Circle -1(1), Cuttack

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.263/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013) M/S Pradhan Transport Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(1), Cuttack Mahanadi Vihar Road, Sikharpur, Cuttack-753003 Pan No. :Aaccp 9795 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 07.06.2023, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1053602705(1) For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was The Submission Of The Ld. Ar That The Issue In This Appeal Was In Respect Of Two Additions Representing Loss & Damages & Bad Debt. It Was The Submission That In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Though Substantial Documents Have Been Produced, However, The Ld. Cit(A) In Para 5.3 Of His Order Has Held That “In Absence Of Any Concrete Documentary Evidence, The Appeal Cannot Be Adjudicated And, Therefore, Additions Made By The Ld. Ao Is Upheld. It Was The Submission That If The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Satisfied With The Evidence As Produced, Then It Was Incumbent

assessee needs to be further substantiated. In these circumstances, it is noticed that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is a non-speaking order. Therefore, issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard

Abhishek Madanlal Todi, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward3(2)(6), Surat

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.550/Srt/2023 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Abhishek Mandanlal Todi Income Tax Officer, Ward- 302, Kanku Ashish, Near 3(2)(6), Surat, Aayakar Vs Jamuna Nagar Bus Stand, Bhavan, Room No.109, Nr. Ghod Dod Road, Surat-395007 Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Pan No. Acxpt 2141 C Hospital, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee submits that NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in ex parte proceedings and passed non-speaking order. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that it was not case of non-compliance rather assessee made a request to the NFAC/Ld ... taking view that such amount may be of past savings. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of submission in a non-speaking order. 5. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by Ld. AR for the assessee before