“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

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3088/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

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

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3049/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkataraman, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69Section 69ASection 69C

S.J. Sivagami, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(7), Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3006/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Ms. Vaibhavi & Ms. Eilakiya, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, C.I.T

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 68

Sivarajpandi Vasantha, Thirupalai, Madurai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corp. Circle-1, Madurai, Income Tax Office

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2878/CHNY/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. Ilaiyaraja, Addl. CIT

Section 139(5)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 57

Arulmigu Chandra Mouleeswarar Temple, Villupuram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Villupuram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2860/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. R. Sumedha, Advocate for Ms. G. Vardini Karthick, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. Ilaiyaraja, Addl. CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

Ganapathi Kanagasabai, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward 1, Vellore

ITA 2856/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. T. V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. Ilaiyaraja, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

Shanmugasudaram, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2833/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. Ilaiyaraja, Addl. CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

Khazana Stores Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1506/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No. 1506/Ahd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Khazana Stores Pvt. Ltd. The Ito Gf 2 Commerce House 2 बनाम/ Ward 2(1)(1) Judges Bunglow Road, V/S. Ahmedabad 380 015 Bodakdev, Ahmedabad 380 054 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaack 7880 R (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars Revenue By : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 23/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As 'Cit(A)'] Dated 07/07/2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia &For Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

facts in not considering fully and properly the submissions made and documents/evidences produced before both the authorities but thereby passing a non-speaking order in a cryptic manner, just referring to the assessment order only. Thus, there was total non-application of mind on part of CIT(A) in disposing

Navasakthi Townships Developers Pvt. Ltd., Cuddalore vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Cuddalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2921/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. K. Ilaiyaraja, Addl. CITFor Respondent: 17.12.2025

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

Manoranjani, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2920/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. K. Ilaiyaraja, Addl. CITFor Respondent: 17.12.2025

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

Albert Sheela, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vellore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2831/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. Ilaiyaraja, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 54

Pranav Construction Systems Private Limited, Thane, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer 15(1)(1), Mumbai, Maharastra

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6631/MUM/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year : 2009-10 Pranav Construction Systems Income Tax Officer- Pvt. Ltd., 34(3)(1), F-8, Kharvai Midc, Vs. 470, 4Th Floor, Opp. Mseb Substation, Aayakar Bhavan, Badlapur Industrial Area, Maharshi Karve Road, Karjat Road,Badlapur (E), Mumbai-400020. Maharashtra-421503. Pan : Aadcp0834B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri V.S.Mahajan, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 144Section 154Section 250

facts and circumstances of any other case, but not related to the Assessee‟s case. Further, the order impugned seems to be a non-speaking order, which has been passed without giving any reasoning or explanation, as to what happened to the amounts of money paid under protest earlier

Sidhampoondi Pa Cultural Coop Bank Ltd. S 1392, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

ITA 3070/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3070/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sidhampoondi Pa Cultural Co-Op Bank Ltd S 1392, 2/173, Main Road, Kondarasampalayam Post P. Velur Tk, Namakkal-637203 Tamil Nadu [Pan: Aabas 0168 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. Ito, Ward-02, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu-6370001 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Mr. Arv Srinivasan, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2025 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 12.08.2025 For Ay 2019-20. 2. At The Outset, We Notice That The Assessee By The Ground No.2 Challenges The Jao Jurisdiction To Issue Notice U/S148 Dated 30.03.2023 Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. ARV Srinivasan, CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Ashok Kumar Kayan, Kolkata

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

ITA 1757/KOL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata……...…………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Ashok Kumar Kayan……………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 1, R N Mukherjee Road, Dalhousie, Kol-1.. [Pan: Alkpk2298K] Appearances By: Pradeep Dung Dung, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 23.07.2024 Of The Cit(A)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 04 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

passed order when there was no compliance by the assessee and it is a fact that CIT (A) has also passed a non-speaking order. 7. After hearing the submissions of the counsels of the respective parties and particularly on perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer passed

Cpt Elecy System Employees Coop T&C Society, Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kancheepuram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

ITA 3058/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3058/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 V. Cpt Elecy System Employees Ito, Coop T & C Society Che-W-(141) (91) No 30 S M Dass Avenue, Chennai, Iyappa Nagar, Tamil Nadu Kancheepuram-631501 [Pan: Aacac8508J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

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

Swamedas Panithasan, Chennai vs. ITO, Non-Corporate Ward 17(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

ITA 3056/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3056/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Swamedas Panithasan Ito, No 14/82 New No 20 Anna Salai, Non-Corporate Ward-17(2), Periyar Nagar A, T. Nagar Chennai. Chennai Alwarthiru Nagar, Alwarthirunagar, Chennai-600087 Tamil Nadu [Pan: Axjpp4321R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

Karjala Seva Sahkari Mandli Limited, Amreli vs. The ITO Ward-3(1)(4), Rajkot-Amreli, Rajkot

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

ITA 423/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250

r.w.s.144 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the Id. 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 assessee

Mungra Ashokbhai, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(10), Jamnagar.

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

ITA 282/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Ms. Rutvika, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

carried out u/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. We note that

Indiran Selvi, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-3, Vellore

ITA 3024/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

Shivi Mukesh Kumar, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 5293/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishshivi Mukesh Kumar Acit, Circle 22(1) D-1402, Hubtown Seasons, Mumbai Next To Fine Arts Society, Vs. Ramakrishna Chemburkar Marg, Chembur, Mumbai-400 071 Pan/Gir No. Aqapk 9881 H (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Dharan V. Gandhi – Advocate & Ms. Vinita A. Nara – Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.07.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. 2. Though, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, However, At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Counsel Appearing For The Assessee Specifically Drew Our Attention To Ground No. 6, Which Reads As Under: 6. The Sanction U/S. 151 Is Bad In Law & As A Result, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Bad In Law. 3. Referring To This Ground, Ld. Counsel Submitted, At The Very Outset, This Issue May Be Considered And, If Warranted The Other Issues Can Be Taken Up Thereafter. As Could Be Seen

For Appellant: Shri Dharan V. Gandhi – Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 35(1)(ii)

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