“speaking order”

Natural JusticeReasoned OrderReasoned Order6,856 judgments

The decision most relied on for speaking order is GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (259 ITR 19), cited in 1,349 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on speaking order

GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO

259 ITR 19 · 2003 · Supreme Court

1,349

citing judgments

When a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons for reopening upon the assessee's request and must dispose of the assessee's objections to the notice by passing a 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.

M/s Sahara India (Farms) v. CIT & Anr.

300 ITR 403 · 2008 · Supreme Court

268

citing judgments

Administrative orders must be consistent with the rules of natural justice.

Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT

131 ITR 451 · 1981 · Supreme Court

143

citing judgments

Appellate authorities in income-tax proceedings have the jurisdiction and duty to correct all errors of lower authorities. They must remit matters for proper or fresh adjudication and issue appropriate directions to ensure substantial justice, unless expressly forbidden by statute.

Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

382 ITR 333 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

Reassessment orders under Section 147/148 are without jurisdiction and invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening of assessment through a speaking order, as mandated by the GKN Driveshafts procedure.

Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala

119 STC 505 · Reported

citing judgments

A Supreme Court speaking order dismissing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has two implications: the statement of law contained therein constitutes a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution, and its findings bind the parties and lower authorities.

PCIT v. Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd.

236 Taxmann 494 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

The incomplete disposal of an assessee's objections by the Assessing Officer makes the reassessment proceedings invalid. The Assessing Officer must dispose of the objections by a speaking order.

Home Finders Housing Ltd. v. ITO

404 ITR 611 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

Non-compliance with the GKN Driveshafts procedure, specifically not passing a speaking order on objections to reassessment before completing the assessment, is a curable procedural irregularity and does not nullify the assessment, particularly if the assessee did not request a speaking order.

Judgments citing speaking order

Fortis C-Doc Healthcare Ltd., Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3972/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE (Vice President)

For Appellant: Sh. R.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR

assessee and it was the further contention that Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC erred in deciding the appeal in a cursory manner, without passing a speaking order on the merits of the case. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and in the interest of justice, I remit back the issues ... /NFAC with the directions to decide the issues on merits afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law, for which ld. DR has no objection. I hold and direct accordingly. However, the assessee is directed through his Ld.AR

Ravi Kumar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle Int. Tax 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 1783/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 8

circumstances of the case the order passed by the learned AO is bad in law as the same is a non-speaking order passed summarily rejecting and not considering, deliberating and dealing with all the contentions/rebuttals made, evidences placed on record and the case laws cited in its true spirit ... rejoinder to remand report have been perused. It is a factual issue. Assessing Officer is directed to take rejoinder to account and pass final speaking order, without making further inquiries with the assessee, and making additions only if rejoinder read with other replies is not found satisfactory. Grounds of objection

The Dhanashree Multipurpose Co-Operative Society Limited, Belgaum vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 119/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2020-21 The Dhanashree Multipurpose Co-Operative Society, Ltd. 722/1, Angol Road, Vidya Nagar, Belgaum-590006 Pan:Aaaad0350R . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

note that, a similar plausible view has been formed & taken by the Ld. AO while assessing the appellant’s income by passing a speaking order u/s 143(3) of the Act which sought to be revised by the Ld. PCIT. On the other hand the Revenue failed to show

Bardc Bank, Bhatkal vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 295/PAN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2014-15 Bardc Bank Bhatkal Next To Bsnl Tower, Bhatkal, Uttara Kannada. Pan:Aaaap1731G . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Ravish Rao [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80P

ground and adjudicate the same along-with all other grounds raised in Form No 35 de-novo in accordance with law and pass a speaking order in terms of s/s (6) of section 250 of the Act, ergo ordered accordingly. The grounds are thus stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Sri Bala Foundation, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad

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

ITA 238/VIZ/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.237 & 238/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2023-24) Sri Bala Foundation, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Hyderabad. (Exemption), Pan: Abbts8184P Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : No Representation ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14/08/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: No representationFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

that assessee’s application filed in Form No.10AB seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Act was rejected by the learned CIT (E) without any speaking order. We further observed that as per the submissions of the assessee, the assessee had responded to the earlier notices dated 08/06/2024 and 16/08/2024 issued ... assessee’s application filed in Form No.10AB seeking registration u/s 80G(5) of the Act was rejected by the learned CIT (E) without any speaking order. We further observed that as per the submissions of the assessee, the assessee had responded to the earlier notices issued

Sri Bala Foundation, Hyderabad vs. CIT(Exemptions), Hyderabad

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

ITA 237/VIZ/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

For Appellant: No representationFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

Thumboor Multipurpose Co-Operative Society Ltd, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Thrissur

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

ITA 439/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Thumboor Multipurpose Co-Op. Society Ltd. .......... Appellant Vellangallur, Thumboor P.O., Thrissur 680662 [Pan: Aaeat8193N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Arun Raj, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 21.06.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Multipurpose Of Co-Operative Society. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 21.06.2018 Disclosing Nil Income. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Thrissur (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

ends of justice, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires remand to the file of the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order adverting to the submissions and evidence adduced before the CIT(A) after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur vs. Dudh Sakhar Us Vahtuk Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Bidri

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

ITA 818/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandra

For Respondent: Appellant by Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

file of Assessing Officer for afresh assessment and he was bound to deal with merits of the case and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Impugned order is set aside and the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Karmaveer Bhausaheb Hiray Nashik Jilha Krishi Audyogiksahakari Sangh Ltd. Krishi Bhavab, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Nashik

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

ITA 628/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Charuhas Dwarkanath UpasaniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(4)

aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to his file for adjudication afresh and pass speaking order on merits as per fact and law after allowing one final opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to provide

Meena Dattatray Fatak, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(3), Pune

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

ITA 581/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering the submissions/evidences filed by the assessee shall pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT

Surana Bhansali Developers, Pune vs. ITO, Circle-5, Pune

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

ITA 1438/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

ld.CIT(A) in the course of set-aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the respondent-assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT

Snowcem Paints Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

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

ITA 2001/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Prathamesh BorkarFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 69C

that ld.CIT(A) in the course of set-aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT

Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 664/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 250

submitted by the Ld. AR that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not a speaking order and the Ld. DR stated that in the grounds of appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A), there were two issues which were not taken up for adjudication before ... further note that in Ajji Basha Vs. CIT (2019) 111 taxmann.com 348 (Madras) it has been held that a speaking order on merits with reasons and findings is to be passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on basis of ground raised in assessee's appeal; he cannot dispose the assessee's appeal

Lakshmi Associates, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1222/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K Chengala Rayudu, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)

Section 250(6)

Page 3 of 3 mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. The provision requires the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a reasoned and speaking order after considering the submissions of the assessee. Since, the assessee did not get an effective opportunity to present its case due to the medical

Viramgam Mahesana Projects Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 119/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarviramgam Mahesana Project Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 17(1), E – 9, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Ndse Part 2, New Delhi – 110 049. (Pan :Aabcv7027L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate Shri V. Raja Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Citdr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Order : 14.08.2025 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. Thisappeal Is Filed By The Assesseeagainst The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)]Dated 22.10.2014For Assessment Year 2006-07 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1 That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Initiation Of The Reassessment Proceedings, U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act & Also Failed To Appreciate That Neither The Mandatory Requirements Of Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act Nor The Pre-Conditions For Invoking The Provisions

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

receipt of the reasons recorded dated 25.03.2011, the assessee filed detailed objections (PB 59). The said objections have never been disposed off through a speaking order before proceeding with and framing the assessment. This in violation of mandate in GKN Driveshaft (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC).” 3. On the other ... that as per the abovesaid decision, no doubt AO is bound to dispose off all the objections raised by the assessee by passing a speaking order, however, he submitted that in case the disposing off the objections require detailed examination of facts and application of legal provisions, which would require

V S Dempo Holdings Private Limited, Panaji-Goa vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle One

ITA 146/PAN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 146/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2019-20 V. S. Dempo Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Dempo House, Campal, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaace4220P . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rohan Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1074798262(1) Dt. 21/03/2025 Passed By Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-1, Hyderabad, [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Dt. 25/10/2020 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru [‘Ld. Cpc’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2019-20 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Rohan Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 249Section 250

consequential admission or dismissal of appeal (ii) if admitted deal therewith de-novo on merits in accordance with applicable law and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. 9. The appeal in result stands allowed for statistical purposes. In terms of rule

Gurunath Gundu Gojagekar, Belagavi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Belgavi

ITA 143/PAN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 143/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Gurunath Gundu Gojagekar 508, Hindu Nagar, Tilakwadi, Belgavi-590006. Pan : Aappg4152N . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Belgaum. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 13/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073157632(1) Dt. 12/02/2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Rectification Dt. 02/03/2021 Passed U/S 154 Of The Act By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Belagavi [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2013-14 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 154Section 246ASection 250

consequential admission or rejection of such appeal and (ii) if admitted, deal therewith do-novo on merits in accordance with law and pass a speaking order in terms of s/s (6) of section 250 of the Act. Ordered Accordingly. 6. The appeal in result stands allowed for statistical purposes

Anchalan Mphammed Najeeb, Malappuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Tirur

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

ITA 491/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anchalan Mohammed Najeeb, .......... Appellant Prop. Mubarak Agencies, Palakkal Post, Velimukku South, Malappuram. [Pan: Bbypm 2420 G] Vs. Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-3, Tirur Appellant By: Shakunth Selvaraj, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr-Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.2025

For Appellant: Shakunth Selvaraj, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, SR-DR

Section 143(3)

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO without passing speaking order. 4. Being aggrieved by the order passes by NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. It is submitted ... learned CIT(A).The NFAC without meeting the grounds of appeal raised before the appellant, simply confirmed the addition without passing a reasoned and speaking order and addressing the submissions made before the NFAC. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion, the matter requires remand to the file

Lakhubhai Nathubhai Sisodiya, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(3), Ahmedabad, Current ITO Ward 3(1)(2)

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

ITA 716/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Appeals) shall grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard and bring all available material on record and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court

Shubhaprada Chit Funds Private Limited, Zaheerabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Sangareddy, Telangana

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the A

ITA 806/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunagha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.805 & 806 /Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2017-18 & 2018-19) Shubhaprada Chit Funds Vs. Income Tax Officer (P) Ltd Ward – 1 Zaheerabad Sangareddy Pan:Aawcs8445G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vinodh Kannan, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-

For Appellant: Shri K.A Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Vinodh Kannan, Sr.AR

Section 69A

grounds of appeal filed by the assessee. In the circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the well-reasoned and speaking order of the AO. Therefore, the additions of Rs.13,35,883/- is confirmed. Hence, the ground of appeal No.3 is Dismissed.” 17. Thus, for want