← All Phrases

“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

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

Samanta Raj Films Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Range-2, Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 390/CTK/2010[1994-95]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack02 Feb 2023AY 1994-95

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144

Nos.383 to 390 /CTK/2010 Assessment Years : 1987-88 to 1994-95 submission that the order of the ld CIT(A) was non-speaking order and bald order and the assessment must be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for passing a speaking order after recording the correct

Samanta Raj Films Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Range-2, Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 389/CTK/2010[1993-94]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack02 Feb 2023AY 1993-94

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144

Nos.383 to 390 /CTK/2010 Assessment Years : 1987-88 to 1994-95 submission that the order of the ld CIT(A) was non-speaking order and bald order and the assessment must be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for passing a speaking order after recording the correct

Samanta Raj Films Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Range-2, Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 388/CTK/2010[1992-93]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack02 Feb 2023AY 1992-93

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144

Nos.383 to 390 /CTK/2010 Assessment Years : 1987-88 to 1994-95 submission that the order of the ld CIT(A) was non-speaking order and bald order and the assessment must be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for passing a speaking order after recording the correct

Samanta Raj Films Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Range-2, Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 387/CTK/2010[1991-92]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack02 Feb 2023AY 1991-92

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144

Nos.383 to 390 /CTK/2010 Assessment Years : 1987-88 to 1994-95 submission that the order of the ld CIT(A) was non-speaking order and bald order and the assessment must be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for passing a speaking order after recording the correct

Samanta Raj Films Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Range-2, Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 386/CTK/2010[1990-91]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack02 Feb 2023AY 1990-91

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144

Nos.383 to 390 /CTK/2010 Assessment Years : 1987-88 to 1994-95 submission that the order of the ld CIT(A) was non-speaking order and bald order and the assessment must be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for passing a speaking order after recording the correct

Samanta Raj Films Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Range-2, Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 385/CTK/2010[1989-90]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack02 Feb 2023AY 1989-90

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144

Nos.383 to 390 /CTK/2010 Assessment Years : 1987-88 to 1994-95 submission that the order of the ld CIT(A) was non-speaking order and bald order and the assessment must be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for passing a speaking order after recording the correct

Samanta Raj Films Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Range-2, Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 384/CTK/2010[1988-89]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack02 Feb 2023AY 1988-89

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144

Nos.383 to 390 /CTK/2010 Assessment Years : 1987-88 to 1994-95 submission that the order of the ld CIT(A) was non-speaking order and bald order and the assessment must be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for passing a speaking order after recording the correct

Samanta Raj Films Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Range-2, Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 383/CTK/2010[1987-88]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack02 Feb 2023AY 1987-88

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144

Nos.383 to 390 /CTK/2010 Assessment Years : 1987-88 to 1994-95 submission that the order of the ld CIT(A) was non-speaking order and bald order and the assessment must be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for passing a speaking order after recording the correct

Dang Jilla Paragliding Adventure Association, Dang vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 35/SRT/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.35/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Court Hearing) Dang Jilla Paragliding Adventure Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Association,O, Saputara, At & P.O. Vs. Aayakar Bhawan (Vejalpur), Nr. Talahwa,Dang-394720 Sachin Tower, 100 Foot Road, Anandnnagar-Phrahladnagar Road, Ahmedabad-380015 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabtd 9827 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu– CIT-DR

Trust u/s 12AA of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Exemption), 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. The ld. CIT(Exemption

Prashant R. Mamlatdarna, Bharuch vs. ITO-Ward-1(5), Bharuch

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

ITA 242/SRT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.242/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing) Prashant R Mamlatdarna Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), 6, Pritam Society No.1 Kasak, 1St Floor, Harkunj Building, Vs. Bharuch-392001 Above Bank Of Baroda, Station Road, Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adepm 4216 H (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Himali Mistry, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar–Sr-DR

Section 144Section 250

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. We note that ld. CIT(A) has not decided various ITA No.242/SRT/2022

M/S. Mega Aims, Bharuch vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Bharuch

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

ITA 24/SRT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.24/Srt/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S Mega Aims Assistant Commissioner Of B-1, Gokuldham Complex, Income-Tax, Circle-1, Bharuch Vs. Dahej Bypass Road, Bharuch- 392001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm 1615 F (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu– CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

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. We note that ld. CIT(A) has not decided various issues ground-wise

Raipur Securities & Investment Limited, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 104/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.104/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Raipur Securities & Investment Ltd. Mig 21, Indravati Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aaccr4419F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

parte basis. However, I find that the CIT(Appeals) had disposed off the appeal on the basis of a non-speaking order. I, say so, for the reason that though the assessee had by way of a specific ground of appeal No.2 assailed the reworking of the LTCG on sale

Sidharth Chaudhary, Karnal vs. ITO, Ward-4, Karnal

Appeal are allowed

ITA 890/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 45

bare reading of the finding of the learned CIT(Appeals) goes to prove that the learned CIT(Appeals) has passed a non-speaking order without considering the facts in right perspective. The assessing authority computed capital gain purely on the basis of conjectures. The Assessing officer has recorded that assessee

M/S Beyond Key Systems P Ltd, Indore vs. The DCIT/ACIT 1(1), Indore

ITA 184/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Beyond Key Systems Dcit/Acit-Circle,1(1) Private Ltd. Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaccb 7622 G Assessee By Shri Manish Dafaria, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.01.2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43BSection 44A

mistakes in the form of twin-additions viz. (i) retaining the double disallowance and (ii) reducing deduction under Chapter VI-A by a non-speaking order. Hence, after a mindful consideration, we find it more appropriate to remand this case back to the file of Ld. AO so that

The Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1), Raipur vs. M/S Sankalp Realities, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 47/RPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.47/Rpr/2018 Co. No.01/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sankalp Realities, 28/620 Anand Niwas, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Abcsf6391P ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

order passed by the AO is illegal inasmuch as it has been passed without disposing objections of appellant and the order is a non-speaking order.” 2. Original assessment was framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 15.12.2011 determining the income

Rakesh Tanwar, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Faridabad

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for

ITA 3406/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri N. K. Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2014-15] Rakesh Tanwar, Income Tax Officer, D-755, Adarsh Nagar, Ward-2(2), Malerna Road, Vs Faridabad, Ballabgarh Haryana Pan-Adhpt3835C Assessee Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 68

issue after hearing the ld. DR and perusing the records. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a laconic and non-speaking order. It has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that even administrative orders have to be consistent rule with natural justice. In this case

Shri Jorubha Jilubha Jadeja, Village Zankhar Post Vidinar Taluka Lalpur, Dist Jamnagar vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(2), Jamnagar

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

ITA 3/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law as well as on facts in passing the order as the order passed is non-speaking order and without going into the detailed facts of the case placed on record and without dealing it in the appellate order ... same is not accepted and thus the order appeal against is passed is a non-speaking order and without dealing with the evidences placed on record and thus the order is bad in law as well as on facts and required to be quashed. (3) Based on the facts

Raj Singh, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-62(4), Delhi

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

ITA 1135/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Maynk Kouts, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A K Arora, Sr DR

Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69

assessment 5 ITA.No. 1135/Del./2022 framed u/s. 144 of the Act. We further find that Ld. CIT(A) also has by cryptic and non-speaking order dismissed the appeal of the assessee and has not decided the issue on merits. Sub Section (6) of Section

Shri. Jaywant Shyam Rathod, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi

ITA 2438/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Raman Shah, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69Section 69A

Hence addition made u/s 69A is not proper and hence not applicable in assessee case. d. Further, the learned CIT (A) passed the Non-speaking order i.e. without considering the submission made by us at the time appeal proceeding.” 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the issues

Salim Ibrahimbai Jaka, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Cnetral Circle-3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5147/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Salim Ibrahimbhai Jaka, Dy. Cit Central Circle- 2Nd Floor, Malhotra House, 3(3), Office No. 1 Opp. Gpo Fort, Vs. Room No. 1923, 19Th Mumbai-400 001. Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Abppj 5700 N Appellant Respondent : Assessee By None : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 01/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by None

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

said addition and has assessment order while making the said addition and has erred in passing a non erred in passing a non-speaking order. An order must be a speaking order. An order must be a speaking order that means speaking order that means an order must speaks