← 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
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
40
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
31
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
27
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
25
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
24
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
21
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
15
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

Late Shri K.Kandasamy Rep by L/H Smt. K.Amirtham, Trichy vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Trichy

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

ITA 1522/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1522/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Late Shri K. Kandasamy, The Income Tax Officer, Rep. By L/H Smt. K. Amirtham, Vs. Ward – 1(2), No.52, Dindigul Main Road, Trichy. Karumandapam, Trichy – 620 001. Pan : Awgpk 0750R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Trichy In Ita No.260/2014-15/Cit(A)-1/Try Dated 24.04.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-I(2), Tiruchirappalli For The Assessment Year 2007-08, U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 26.03.2015. 2. The Only Issue Remains For Adjudication Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao In Computing Long Term Capital Gain On Sale Of Land Situated At Kuniamuthur, Coimbatore Admeasuring 6.75½ Acres For A Consideration Of Rs.45 Lakhs As Per Sale Deed But Addition Confirmed Based On Sworn Statement Of The Assessee Admitting The Sale Consideration At Rs.2,63,99,250/-.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

wherein only unexplained investment to the extent of Rs.42,27,780/- was considered. Even the CIT(A) has passed cryptic and non-speaking order and that also ex-parte qua assessee without elaborating on merits of the case, whether the assessee has received total consideration of Rs.2

K H & Associates, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Mumbai

ITA 2241/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Shah &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194Section 44A

Also some aspects were not ventured at all. A fair hearing has to be there in substance and not merely in form. Such Non-speaking orders are in essence nothing but violation of principles of natural justice. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete

Nsk Builders, Trichy vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 47/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144

assessee is hereby dismissed.” 7. Similar are the findings in other years. We noted that the order of CIT(A) is totally non-speaking order and ex-parte. Owing by the circumstances in the family of the Director’s of the assessee company, we are allowing one more opportunity

Nsk Builders, Trichy vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 46/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144

assessee is hereby dismissed.” 7. Similar are the findings in other years. We noted that the order of CIT(A) is totally non-speaking order and ex-parte. Owing by the circumstances in the family of the Director’s of the assessee company, we are allowing one more opportunity

Nsk Builders, Trichy vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 45/CHNY/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144

assessee is hereby dismissed.” 7. Similar are the findings in other years. We noted that the order of CIT(A) is totally non-speaking order and ex-parte. Owing by the circumstances in the family of the Director’s of the assessee company, we are allowing one more opportunity

ACIT Circle 3(1), Trichy vs. N.S.K.Builders, Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1415/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144

assessee is hereby dismissed.” 7. Similar are the findings in other years. We noted that the order of CIT(A) is totally non-speaking order and ex-parte. Owing by the circumstances in the family of the Director’s of the assessee company, we are allowing one more opportunity

Subramanian Sreeram, Bangalore vs. CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, National Faceless Appeal Centre

The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1027/BANG/2022[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2022AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Navneet N. Kini, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 90

tribunal in the case of Page 2 of 10 Ms. Brinda Ramakrishna, ITA No. 454/Bang/2021 vide its order dated 17-Nov-2021. 2. Non-speaking order - Rule 128(8) prescribes documents for claiming foreign tax credit. Appeal has been dismissed on the grounds that the assessee has not complied with

Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT-CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 579/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR
Section 115JSection 143Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in passing a non-speaking order in as much as he held the split of 50:50 of interest differential is correct based on earlier years without adducing any reasons

ACIT -3(4), Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1438/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR
Section 115JSection 143Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in passing a non-speaking order in as much as he held the split of 50:50 of interest differential is correct based on earlier years without adducing any reasons

ITO -6(1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Arm Infra & Utilities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1720/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Jay Bhansali, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Singa, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

considering the above facts, in our considered view, the Assessing Officer has made enquiries and carried on with the verification even though passed non-speaking order. The Explanation-2 to section 263 of the Act can be invoked only when no enquiries or verification is carried on otherwise it cannot

Walvoil Fluid Power India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 339/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.339/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Walvoil Fluid Power India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.19, 2Nd Cross, 2Nd Main, Of Income Tax, Kiadb Attibele Industrial Area, Circle 7(1)(2), Attibele, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 562 107. Pan: Aaacw 5954E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri R.E. Balasubramaniyan, Ca Respondent By : Dr. Shankar Prasad, K., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.This Appeal Is Against The Final Order Of The Ao Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] Dated 28.01.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On The Following Grounds:- “1. That The Order Of The Ld. Ao Insofar As It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. That In The Calculation Of Alp The Ld. Ao Erred In Including Entities Such As M/S Dhp India Ltd & The Sundram Bleistahl

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad, K., Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

remitted the issue pertaining to exclusion/inclusion of comparables to the file of the DRP on the ground that the DRP has passed a non-speaking order about the objections raised by the assessee with a direction to adjudicate / verify comparables qua filters finally selected

Smt.Adithyapan Amutha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 74/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

through the fact that the order of CIT(A) on both the items, on which penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is confirmed is totally non-speaking order, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication

Mallikarjun Virupaxappa Yarasi, Gadag vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 437/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

completely omitted to examine the issues in question from consideration and made the assessment in an arbitrary manner. His order is a completely non-speaking order. In our view, it was a fit case for the learned P.Commissioner to exercise his revisional jurisdiction under section 263 which he rightly exercised

Asha Devi, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 371/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Deva Rathna Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

brought out any details of verification of cash deposits carried out by him during the course of assessment and he has passed a non-speaking order accepting the explanation given by the assessee. The source of cash deposits from “safe custody account” was not questioned by the AO by calling

DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai vs. Wind World India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1910/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

Supreme Court in the case of Chettinad Logistics P Ltd (95 taxmann.com 221) as the aforesaid decision is a non-speaking order and no reason has been given for the decision and therefore, not a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution?" 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances

Wind World India Limitead, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1470/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

Supreme Court in the case of Chettinad Logistics P Ltd (95 taxmann.com 221) as the aforesaid decision is a non-speaking order and no reason has been given for the decision and therefore, not a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution?" 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances

Wind World India Limitead, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1469/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

Supreme Court in the case of Chettinad Logistics P Ltd (95 taxmann.com 221) as the aforesaid decision is a non-speaking order and no reason has been given for the decision and therefore, not a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution?" 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances

Wind World India Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 3 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1468/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

Supreme Court in the case of Chettinad Logistics P Ltd (95 taxmann.com 221) as the aforesaid decision is a non-speaking order and no reason has been given for the decision and therefore, not a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution?" 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances

Wind World India Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 3 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1467/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

Supreme Court in the case of Chettinad Logistics P Ltd (95 taxmann.com 221) as the aforesaid decision is a non-speaking order and no reason has been given for the decision and therefore, not a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution?" 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances

Wind World India Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1466/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

Supreme Court in the case of Chettinad Logistics P Ltd (95 taxmann.com 221) as the aforesaid decision is a non-speaking order and no reason has been given for the decision and therefore, not a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution?" 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances