“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

Chhaganbhai Bhupatbhai Kikani, Jasdan, Dist. Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2 (1) (3), Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 114/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Dattani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

carried out u/s 143(3) the Act and the 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. 5. Considering the above facts

Bhisti Exports, Veraval vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4, Veraval

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

ITA 884/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot04 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

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.The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before

Bhisti Exports, Veraval vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4, Veraval

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

ITA 883/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot04 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Sp Chidambaram, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ward 1, Kanchipuram

ITA 3934/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3934/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sp Chidambaram 21-A/6, Vallal Pachiyappan Street, Kancheepuram-631501 Tamil Nadu [Pan: Aachc 3681 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Ito, Ward (1), Kancheepuram, 96, Munuswamy Mudaliar Avenue, Kancheepuram-631501 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr. K. Subash Anbarasu, Adv प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 28.01.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 17.12.2025 For Ay 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, We Notice That The Assessee By The Ground No.4 Challenges The Jao Jurisdiction To Issue Notice U/S148 Dated 29.03.2024 Of The Act. :: 2 ::

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand

Sun Power Life Battery Centre, Kovilpatti vs. ITO Ward 2, Tuticorin

ITA 3390/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 3390/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sun Power Life Battery Centre Ito Ward 2 Tuticorin No. 23H-25, Krishnan Kovil St, Kovilpatti-628501 19A Main Building, West Greater Cotton Road, Tuticorin-628001 [Pan: Abnfs 4366 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : Mr. K. Balasubramanian Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 14.10.2025 For Ay 2018-19.

For Appellant: Mr. K. BalasubramanianFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

Shanmugam Chinnia Gounder, Coimbatore vs. ITO Non Corp Ward 1(1), Coimbatore

ITA 3366/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 3366/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shanmugam Chinnia Gounder V. No. 240, Sasthiri Street, Avinashi Road Br Puram, Peelamedu, Coimbatore-641 004 [Pan: Afkpc 1564 Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Ito Ncw 1(1) Све, Annexe Building, Tamil Nadu (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Mr. Abhishek Murali, C.A. अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 28.05.2024 For Ay 2018-19.

For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

Dgl Dist Govt Teachers Co-Operative Society Limited, Dindigul vs. The Income Tax Officer, Dindigul

ITA 3341/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 3341/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Dgl Dist Govt Teachers Co- Operative Society Limited 23D, Krishna Road 2Nd Street, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu 624001 [Pan: Aacad0679F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. Ito Che-W-(501)(91) Chennai (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 18.07.2025 For Ay 2019-20.

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

Vasu Saravanan, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 1(6), Chennai

ITA 3331/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 3331/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Vasu Saravanan Old No 39, New No. 2, Ramasamy Street, T Nagar, Chennai-600 017 [Pan: Apgps 9284 M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. Ito, Non Corp Ward 1(6) Chennai, Room No. 412, Main Building Ayakar Bhavan, Nungambakka, Chennai, T.N-600034 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By Mr. Y Sridhar, F.C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 19.09.2025 For Ay 2020-21.

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

Jaya Chandra Rajan, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Ward 1 Tirunelvel, Tirunelvel

ITA 3329/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Amazon Developement Centre(India) Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 2127/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Deepashree Rao &For Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J, CIT-DR

Section 250

Authority for Advance Ruling and the decision of the Tribunal without according any reason and that the CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking order. The Ld.DR further argued that the ruling of AAR are applicable only to the specific assessee and therefore cannot be applied directly in assessee

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Amazon Developement Centre (India) Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 2036/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Deepashree Rao &For Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J, CIT-DR

Section 250

Forum Sales Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 07, Delhi

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6375/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254

find that Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not deciding the same on merits and passed a non-speaking order, 2 | P a g e which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper

Forum Sales Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 07, Delhi

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6374/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254

Rajeshbhai Savjibhai Amrutiya, Morbi vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Morbi

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

ITA 709/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Modi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadab, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250

r.w.s. 144 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. Considering the above facts, we note that

Rajeshbhai Savjibhai Amrutiya, Morbi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Morbi

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

ITA 708/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Modi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadab, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250

Madhav Jewellers, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(2), Rajkot

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

ITA 701/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Rashmin Vekariya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadab, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

r.w.s. 144 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. Considering the above facts, we note that

Madhav Jewellers, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(2), Rajkot

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

ITA 700/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Rashmin Vekariya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadab, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Abraham Nathaniel Addanki, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1148/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1148/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Abraham Nathaniel Vs. Income Tax Officer, Addanki, Ward-14(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Adqpa7546N

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148

unable to persuade ourselves to concur with the manner in which the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal based on a non-speaking order, i.e., without adverting to the specific grounds based on which the impugned order of assessment was assailed before him. Although, we principally concur with

Yashpal Grover, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 36(1), Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 6280/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Ghai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69A

replied in time with all necessary and required enclosures which none of them appreciated without giving any reason in these non-reasoned, non-speaking orders, passed with their own surmises and conjunctures. (11) Ld. Assessing Officer has erred by not giving opportunity of being heard to the Appellant several times ... without considering the written submissions of the Appellant and without considering the factual matrix of the case and thus passing a non-speaking order. (23) That the Ld.AO has erred by invoking section 115BBE for considering unexplained income thus this is to be dropped. (24) The order passed

Property Plus Realtores, Delhi vs. Pr CIT Central Delhi-2, Delhi

ITA 3407/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 263

ITA Nos.3406 & 3407/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL