“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

Herin Pravinchandra Kothari, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-DCIT/ACIT-2(1), RKT, Rajkot

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

ITA 982/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No. 982/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2020-21 Herin Pravinchandra Kothari Ito, Wd – 2(1), Viral-Saraswati Society, Opp. Sonal, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Nirmala Road, Rajkot-360001 Road, Rajkot-360001 Pan : Actpk7690P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

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. 8. Considering the above facts

Harshaben Vrajlal Rajani, Wankaner vs. The ITO Ward -1, Morbi

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

ITA 961/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 961/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Harshaben Vrajlal Rajani Addl/Jcit (A)-1 Chennai Amarsar, Sheri No 1, Vs. Tamil Nadu Pratap Para, Wankaner 363621, Gujarat, India "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bqepr6583E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/01/2026 Order Per.Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017- 18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 10.11.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, On 29.12.2019. 2. None Appeared On The Date Of Hearing Before The Bench, Despite Of Issuance Of Notice Of Hearing To The Assessee, On The Address Mentioned In Form No. 36. It Means The Assessee Is Not Interested In Prosecuting This Appeal. Harshaben Vrajlal Rajani 3. On The Other Hand, Ld. Dr For The Revenue, Argued That Assessee Did Not Appear Before Ld. Cit(A) Therefore, Ld. Dr Did Not Have Any Objection, If The Matter Is Restored Back To The File Of The Learned Cit(A) For Fresh Adjudication.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 250

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, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity

Dipsinh Dolatsinh Padhiyar, Rajkot vs. ITO Ward 1(2)(1) RKT, Rajkot

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

ITA 933/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 933/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Dipsinh Dolatsinh Padhiyar The Ito, Wd-1(2)(1) 10, Bhagwati Para, Opp. Rajaram Vs. New Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course School, Bhagwati Para Main Road, Road, Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqdpp0366P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J. R. Mankodi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147

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, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 5. Considering the above facts, I note

ITO, Ward-3, Yamuna Nagar vs. Raman Kohli, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 445/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.445/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2.आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.437/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ito Ward - 3 Raman Kohli Aaykar Bhawan, Sector-17, Huda, C/O Rama Rolling & General Mills बनाम/ Vs. Jagadhari, Haryana – 135003 Old Ambala Road Opp. Hindu Girls College Jagadhari (Haryana) - 135003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Actpk-8263-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Ekta Kumari (Advocate), Ms. Mehak Dhiman (Advocate), Sh. B.M. Monga (Advocate)&Sh. Rohit Kaura (Advocate) – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Sh. Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual Mode) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2021-22 Have Been Preferred On Identical Facts & Issues. First, We

For Appellant: Ms. Ekta Kumari (Advocate), Ms. Mehak Dhiman (Advocate)For Respondent: Sh. Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual Mode)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

discharged this onus. 4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in passing a cryptic and non-speaking order in which no names of the specific sellers which were found to be genuine have been mentioned by him nor the details furnished

ITO, Yamuna Nagar vs. Raman Kohli, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 437/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Ms. Ekta Kumari (Advocate), Ms. Mehak Dhiman (Advocate)For Respondent: Sh. Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual Mode)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Nezone Tubes Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 180/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by failing to adjudicate the ground that the Learned Assessing Officer passed a non-speaking order, devoid of any reasoning, thereby failing to comply with the statutory requirement of providing a reasoned order. 11. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income

Nezone Tubes Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 179/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

Dhimant Jayantilal Kotecha, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 928/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 928/RJT/2025 (Ǔनधा[रणवष[/Assessment Year: (2020-21) Appellant by : Shri Malay Koticha, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date of Hearing : 12/01/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 12/01/2026 ORDER Per.Dr. Arjun Lal Saini (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Malay Koticha, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, 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, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 5. Considering the above facts, I note

Devang Manojbhai Savaliya, Rajkot vs. Ward 2(1)(2), Rajkot

Appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 916/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No. 915 & 916/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Devang Manojbhai Savaliya Income Tax Officer, Wd – 2(2)(1), Kailash Shiv Shrushti Par, Street No.3, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Pedak Road, Bedipara, Rajkot - 360003 Road, Rajkot - 360003 Pan No.: Gbgps2554J (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 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. 6. Considering the above facts

Devang Manojbhai Savaliya, Rajkot vs. ITO WD 2(2)(1) Rajkot, Rajkot

Appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 915/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

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

Section 147

Nazareth Learning Services, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-7(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3022/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, C.I.T

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

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

Nisar Ahamed Abdul Sukkur, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1868/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri. Shrenik Chordia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

Income Tax Officer, Pune vs. Sagar Construction Company, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1812/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Riya OswalFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 37Section 68

chronology of events which are as under: 16. He submitted that when the Assessing Officer rejected the objections by passing a non-speaking order by simply mentioning that the objections raised by 14 CO No.43/PUN/2025 the assessee have been disposed off in terms of directions of the Hon’ble Supreme ... decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs ITO (supra) by rejecting the objections through a non-speaking order is concerned, he submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed the rejection order addressing the specific objections categorically as per the directions laid down

Initiative for Moral and Cultural Training Foundation Telangana, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1015/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1015/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2024-25) Initiative For Moral & Vs. Commissioner Of Income Cultural Training Tax (Exemptions) Foundation Telangana, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aacti2564F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate T. Chaitanya Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Initiative For Moral & Cultural Training Foundation Telangana, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), (“Ld. Cit(E)”) Dated 19.03.2025 For The A.Y 2024-25. Page 1 Of 6

For Appellant: Advocate T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: : Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT

Section 80G

without pointing out any specific deficiency in the documents furnished by the assessee. It was also submitted that the impugned order is a non-speaking order, violating principles of natural justice. The Ld. AR prayed that the matter be remanded back to the Ld. CIT(E) to consider the submissions ... assessee are not commensurate with its objects and the same are not as per the provisions of section 80G of the Act. A non-speaking order rejecting statutory approval, without dealing with the submissions and evidence furnished, is violative of the principles of natural justice. In view of the above

Esi Hospital Employees Co-Op Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3030/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri. G Reddi Prakash, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 80P

Ansari Steel, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 433/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Sarju Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

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, 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

M/S. Kalyan Tiles, at: - Charadava, Morbi-Halvad High-Way, Tal.: - & Dist. : - Morbi-363330 vs. The ITO Ward-3, Morbi

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

ITA 2/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

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 M/s Kalyan Tiles the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not given

Shree Krishna Gyanodaya Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2179/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Shree Krishna Gyanodaya Acit, Central Circle 4(3) Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan Poorva 15Th Floor, 46C, Chowringhee 110, Kolkata-700107, Vs. Road, Everest House, Kolkata- West Bengal 700071, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs8774P Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 153ASection 68

C.S.T., Delhi (14.05.2015-CESTAT - Delhi): 2015/39/S.T.R.1006(Tri. - Del), has held as under: Shree Krishna Gyanodaya Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Impugned order was non-speaking order as it had not considered and analysed various submissions of Appellant before coming to finding" 4.9. Further, in the case of Ahmad Ullah vs. Union

New Track Exim Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 18(3), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2765/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

Disposing of Objections raised by the appellant on the same day of passing the assessment order and that too by way of non-speaking order. The appellant vide letter dated 12-11-2019 raised certain objections in relation to the reopening of the case. In the aforesaid letter, the appellant

Paramasiva Naidu Muthuvelraj Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-3, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3089/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri. N.V.Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, C.I.T

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A