non-speaking order — 793 case laws

Shri Parnami Panchayat, Jaipur vs. ITO, (Exemptions), Ward-1, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 14/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev sogani (C.A) &For Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

exercise of its jurisdiction under article 136 of the Constitution. That certainly could not be so when appeal is dismissed though by a non-speaking order. Here the doctrine of merger applies. In that case, the Supreme Court upholds the decision of the High Court or of the Tribunal from ... State of Bihar it has been held by this Court that the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition in limine by a non-speaking order does not justify any inference that, by necessary implication, the contentions raised in the Special Leave Petition on the merits of the case have been

P M Patel (HUF), Ved Road, Surat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Surat

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

ITA 422/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat17 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.422/Srt/2023 (Ay 2015-16) (Hearing In Physical Court) P.M. Patel (Huf) Deputy Commissioner Of 2-A-1, Gudluck Gems Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Vs Building, Opp. Prannath Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Hospital, Ved Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395001 395006 Pan No: Aajhp 0673 B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has not offered adequate opportunities to hear the case and passed non-speaking order and hence the case may please be set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) or AO. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Shri Kuldeep Kumar, Bikaner vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Bikaner

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

ITA 221/JODH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2010-11 Sh. Kuldeep Kumar S/O Ram Income Tax Officer, Swaroop, Chak-13 Kyd Vs Ward-1(4), Bikaner Khajuwala, Bikaner-3334023 Pan: Brkpk2021B Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Sh. Suresh Ojha, Advocate Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac) Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.05.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act Dated 21.11.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- 1. The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer & Sustained By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Illegal Against The Law & Without Any Application Of Mind, Therefore, Is Liable For Quash. Sh. Kuldeep Kumar

Section 147Section 148Section 250

appreciate the evidence, additional evidence, and submission submitted before him, therefore, the Addition may kindly be declared illegal looking to the unreasoned and non-speaking order. 4. That cost may kindly be awarded because the Commissioner of Income Tax appeals fails to follow the law of the land and also

M/S Kerala Automobiles Ltd, Trivandrum vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Trivandrum

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

ITA 176/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Kerala Automobiles Ltd. Asst. Cit, Aralumoodu P.O., Neyattinkara Circle 1(1), Vs. Trivandurm 695123 Trivandrum [Pan:Aabck0142M] (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Anand George Thomas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 251Section 68

borrowed or otherwise, are from regular suppliers thereof. The assessment order, sans any findings and bereft of any reason, is, in fact, a non-speaking order and, therefore, does not qualify as one. The travesty of the judicial process does not end here. The first appellate authority did not admit

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 123/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty

Section 143(3)Section 80C

natural Justice. The orders are highly unjustified and are not sustainable in law. ln view of the above, being a cryptic and non-speaking order. That, it is settled law that, the AO cannot compel the assessee to earn income so that the addition made by AO in respect

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 122/CTK/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty

Section 143(3)Section 80C

natural Justice. The orders are highly unjustified and are not sustainable in law. ln view of the above, being a cryptic and non-speaking order. That, it is settled law that, the AO cannot compel the assessee to earn income so that the addition made by AO in respect

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 121/CTK/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty

Section 143(3)Section 80C

natural Justice. The orders are highly unjustified and are not sustainable in law. ln view of the above, being a cryptic and non-speaking order. That, it is settled law that, the AO cannot compel the assessee to earn income so that the addition made by AO in respect

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 120/CTK/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty

Section 143(3)Section 80C

natural Justice. The orders are highly unjustified and are not sustainable in law. ln view of the above, being a cryptic and non-speaking order. That, it is settled law that, the AO cannot compel the assessee to earn income so that the addition made by AO in respect

Vallabhbhai Valjibhai Jagani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(8), Surat

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

ITA 70/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat04 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Vallabhbhai Valjibhai Jagani, I.T.O., 452/452, Avadh Vice-Roy Sarthana, Ward-3(2)(8), Vs. Jakatnaka, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Accpj 3431 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 250(6)Section 254(1)

assessee even on earlier occasion, sought adjournment vide application/letter dated 08/02/2021. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in a non-speaking order without following the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). 3. The ld. AR of the assessee

Vasundhara Vrix Vanwadi Jal Sinchn Vikas Sahakai Mandli Ltd., Na vs. Arivs.the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Navsari Circle, Navsari

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

ITA 280/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Vasundhara Vrix Vanwadi A.C.I.T., Jalsinchnvikas Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Navsari Circle, Navsari, Vs. Room No. 302, 3Rd Floor, “Vrindavan Campus” At:Lachhakadi, Post-Gangpur, Tal. Vansada, Dist.- Income Tax Office, Navsari, Gujarat-396050. Charpool, Awabaug, Pan No. Aaajv 0058 M Navsari, Gujarat-396445. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 274Section 80P(2)(a)

subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not offered adequate opportunities to hear the case and passed non-speaking order and hence the case may please be set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) or AO. Vasundhara Vrix Vanwadi Jalsinchnvikas Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs ACIT

Shri Rakesh Soni, Indore vs. The ITO, W-2(3), Indore

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

ITA 52/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirakesh Soni, 31, Classic Ito, Ward-2(3) Purnima Estate, Indore Vs. Khajrana Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bmips 8863 G Assessee By Shri Piyush Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2023

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

deposit in bank account along with supporting evidences remained unexamined by the authorities below. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the impugned non-speaking order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the AO for fresh adjudication after considering

Shri Salasar Satsang Pariwar, Belgavi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bangaluru

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 282/PAN/2019[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Y VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

sole substantive grievance seeking sec.80G(5) registration, we note that the CIT(E), 2 ITA.No.282/PAN./2019 Bengaluru has not passed his totally non-speaking order which reads as under : “In this case the trust had applied for grant of recognition u/s 80G of the Income

Rajasthan Transmat Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 165/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MEETHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mrs. Prabha Rana, AR and Shri Vinod Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

assessment year 2012-13 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in passing non-speaking order by confirming the addition of Rs.79.90 lacs as undisclosed income of unsecured loan is bad in law and facts. 2 RAJASTHAN TRANSMAT ... dismissed. 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing non-speaking order by confirming the addition of Rs.79.90 lacs as undisclosed income of unsecured loan is bad in law and facts. During the course of hearing