← 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

Property Plus Realtors, Delhi vs. Pr, CIT Central Delhi 2, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3406/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

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

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263

appellant. A compressed timeline/ denied adjournment in a time-barred month violates the principle of the audi alteram partem. 44. Further a non-speaking order that ignores material submission/ evidence is per se invalid. 45. That in this regard the reliance is place on the following cases

Om Ceramic Industries, Morbi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Morbi

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

ITA 493/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 492 & 493/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2020-21) Om Ceramics Industries Ito, Wd – 1, Anand Nagar, 8-A, National Highway, Wankaner, Vs. Morbi – 363642 Morbi-363642 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabpo6588L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Rutvika, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271A

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. Page 3 of 5 ITA No. 492 & 493/Rjt/2025 Om Ceramic Industries We also note

Om Ceramic Industries, Morbi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Morbi

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

ITA 492/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 492 & 493/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2020-21) Om Ceramics Industries Ito, Wd – 1, Anand Nagar, 8-A, National Highway, Wankaner, Vs. Morbi – 363642 Morbi-363642 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabpo6588L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Rutvika, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271A

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. Page 3 of 5 ITA No. 492 & 493/Rjt/2025 Om Ceramic Industries We also note

Income Tax Officer, Lucknow vs. Rajeev Kumar Kapoor, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 424/LKW/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 1Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 69C

discussed what the reply of the assessee was and how it was not acceptable to him. Therefore, his order is also a non-speaking order and even while we accept the fact that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was not a speaking order, it is evident that

Shri Mandorana Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandli Limited, Village-Mandorana vs. Income Tax Officer, Veraval

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 872/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Sr. (DR)
Section 147

framed under section 147/144 of 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. I note that

Shri Mandorana Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandli Limited, Jnd-Veraval vs. Income Tax Officer, Veraval

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 870/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Sr. (DR)
Section 147

framed under section 147/144 of 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. I note that

Himesh Rameshchandra Gohil, Bharuch vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Jamnagar

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 843/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Ms. Rutvika, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80G

r.w.s 144B of 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. ITA No. 843/Rjt/2025 A.Y 19-20 Himesh

Independent and Public Spirited Media Foundation, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 625/BANG/2023[Nill]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : Na

For Appellant: S/Shri. A. Sheshadri, CA and Bhardwaj Sheshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 133A

subsequent letter dated 24-11-2015 even adverted to in the impugned order much less dealt with. Thus, the order itself is a non-speaking order. The basic and minimal requirement of the petitioner being given a personal hearing and the opportunity to respond to the proposed transfer

Madhuri Jaiswal, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh vs. DCIT/ACIT 3(1), Gwl, Gwalior, Madhyapradesh

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 217/AGR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(2)Section 68

disallowed of PL. account whereas case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. 6. That Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) has erred in passing a non-speaking order which is against the law even as well as the action of the Id. AO based upon surmises and conjecture without there being

Sambasivam Nandha, Coimbatore vs. Income Tax Officer Non Corp Ward 3(2), Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above and the stay application is dismissed

ITA 3245/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3245/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Sa No.117/Chny/2025 [In Ita No.3245/Chny/2025] V. Shri Sambasivam Nandha, Ito, 10/305, 7Th Street, Nchatra Non-Corporate Ward-3(2), Garden, Oraikalpalayam, Race Course, Coimbatore, Masagoundenchettipalayam, Tamil Nadu-641018 Coimbatore Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Ahepn0682Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. K. Gowtham, Ca : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Mr. Guru Prasad, Addl.Cit : सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 : घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 14.01.2026

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gowtham, CA
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 ... even ex parte, that is, in the absence of the opposite party. In any case, the dismissal would remain a dismissal by a non-speaking order where no reasons have been assigned and no law has been declared by the Supreme Court. The dismissal is not of the appeal

G2273 Arungunam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Arungunam vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2406/CHNY/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. Sivakumar, Addl. C.I.T
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

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

Hashmat Ishaq Parker, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 4071/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 282A

raised by the assessee on legal and jurisdictional issues and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits, that too, through a cryptic and non-speaking order. When the assessee has raised a specific ground challenging the validity of the assessment order on account of inappropriate sanction and facts relating

Hashmat Ishaq Parar, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

ITA 3973/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarι.Τ.Α No.4071/Mum/2025 Α.Υ. 2015-16 Ι.Τ.Α. No.3973/Mum/2025 Α.Υ. 2018-19 Hashmat Ishaq Parker Vs Income Tax Officer 1, Furus, Tal-Khed, District- Ratnagiri, Maharashtra- 415710 Pan : Αχορρ1815Η Appellant Income Tax Office, Ward 17(3)(1), Mumbai-400051 Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi Respondent By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/01/2026 Order Per Bench: Both The Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee By Challenging The Order Of The Nfac Delhi [For Brevity, ‘Ld.Cit(A)'] Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Brevity, ‘The Act), Date Of Order 20/12/2024 & 06/12/2024 Related To Assessment Year 2015-16 & 2018-19 Respectively. The Impugned Orders Emanated From The Order Of The Learned Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Ratinagiri (For Brevity, ‘The Ld.Ao') Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act, Date Of Orders 20/03/2023 & 21/03/2023 For Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2018-19. 2. Since All The Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, Involving Similar Issues Arising Out Of A Similar Factual Matrix, These Appeals Were Heard Together As A Matter Of Convenience & Are Being Decided By Way Of This Consolidated Order. With The Consent Of The Parties, The Appeal For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Treated As A Lead Case & The Decision Rendered Therein Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis To Other Appeal For Ay 2018-19 Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 282A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

Mujahid, Buland Shahr vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, all these 06 Assessee’s appeal are allowed for

ITA 3887/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

passed the exparte order without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. It was further submitted that similarly has passed the exparte order and non-speaking order, which is against the principles of natural justice as the same has been passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being hard, dismissed ... appeal of the assessee on account of non-prosecution and even not decided the matter on merits appropriately and passed the non-speaking order in the case. 3. | We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. Upon careful consideration, we find that in this case

Mujahid, Buland Shahr vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, all these 06 Assessee’s appeal are allowed for

ITA 3886/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

passed the exparte order without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. It was further submitted that similarly has passed the exparte order and non-speaking order, which is against the principles of natural justice as the same has been passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being hard, dismissed ... appeal of the assessee on account of non-prosecution and even not decided the matter on merits appropriately and passed the non-speaking order in the case. 3. | We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. Upon careful consideration, we find that in this case

Mujahid, Buland Shahr vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, all these 06 Assessee’s appeal are allowed for

ITA 3885/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

passed the exparte order without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. It was further submitted that similarly has passed the exparte order and non-speaking order, which is against the principles of natural justice as the same has been passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being hard, dismissed ... appeal of the assessee on account of non-prosecution and even not decided the matter on merits appropriately and passed the non-speaking order in the case. 3. | We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. Upon careful consideration, we find that in this case

Mujahid, Buland Shahr vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, all these 06 Assessee’s appeal are allowed for

ITA 3884/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

passed the exparte order without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. It was further submitted that similarly has passed the exparte order and non-speaking order, which is against the principles of natural justice as the same has been passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being hard, dismissed ... appeal of the assessee on account of non-prosecution and even not decided the matter on merits appropriately and passed the non-speaking order in the case. 3. | We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. Upon careful consideration, we find that in this case

Mujahid, Buland Shahr vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, all these 06 Assessee’s appeal are allowed for

ITA 3883/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

passed the exparte order without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. It was further submitted that similarly has passed the exparte order and non-speaking order, which is against the principles of natural justice as the same has been passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being hard, dismissed ... appeal of the assessee on account of non-prosecution and even not decided the matter on merits appropriately and passed the non-speaking order in the case. 3. | We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. Upon careful consideration, we find that in this case

Mujahid, Buland Shahr vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, all these 06 Assessee’s appeal are allowed for

ITA 3882/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

passed the exparte order without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. It was further submitted that similarly has passed the exparte order and non-speaking order, which is against the principles of natural justice as the same has been passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being hard, dismissed ... appeal of the assessee on account of non-prosecution and even not decided the matter on merits appropriately and passed the non-speaking order in the case. 3. | We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. Upon careful consideration, we find that in this case

Ankit Anilbhai Abhani, Rajkot vs. ITO WD 1(1)(1) Rajkot, Rajkot

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

ITA 2/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No. 02/Rjt/2026 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ankit Anilbhai Abhani Ito, Wd – 1(1)(1), S-4, 2Nd Floor, Sardar Nagar 3/5, Sardar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Main Road, Rajkot-360001 Road, Rajkot-360001 Pan : Avkpa9578J (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri R. K, Takvani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147

carried out u/s 147 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