← All Phrases

“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
89
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
68
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
58
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
56
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

Kk Tourist Home, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

ITA 505/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

consideration of the submissions made by the assessee, dismissed the appeal by passing a speaking order. The findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are as under:- “11. I have considered the contentions of the appellant. In this regard, it needs to be stated that the appellant or for that matter

Kk Tourist Home, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

ITA 504/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

consideration of the submissions made by the assessee, dismissed the appeal by passing a speaking order. The findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are as under:- “11. I have considered the contentions of the appellant. In this regard, it needs to be stated that the appellant or for that matter

Haragopal Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemptions), Aayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad

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

ITA 816/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Aug 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.816/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2025-26) M/S. Haragopal Educational Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Society, (Exemption), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan:Aaath5611C (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 01/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

assessee society vis-à-vis its stated objects. The rejection order is devoid of any reasoning and lacks the attributes of a speaking order. 7. In view of the above, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file ... directed to examine the submissions made by the assessee and decide the issue on merits by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, after affording a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Srithik Ispat Private Limited, Goa vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1) Panaji, Goa, Panaji

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 48/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year: 2016-17 Srithik Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 3, Sanguem Industrial Estate, Sanguem, Goa-403704 Pan : Aaics1765P . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By: Mrs Girija Agrawal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing: 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Challenges Din & Order No 1068425181(1) Dt. 06/09/2024 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’] U/S 250 Of The Act Which Originated From Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 144 Of The Act By Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. [‘Ld. Ao’].

For Appellant: Mrs Girija Agrawal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)Section 40Section 68

going into legal & meritorious grounds of appeal, we have heard rival party’s submissions on ground concerning (ground number 1) for not passing a speaking order by the Ld. NFAC and subject to rule 18 (supra) perused material placed on record and considered facts in the light of settled position ... remittance to the file of Ld. NFAC with a direction to deal therewith de-novo in accordance with law and pass a speaking order in consonance with s/s (6) of section 250 of the Act. 14. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT

Sunil Kumar Agarwal and Sons, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur

ITA 434/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 434/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 183Section 250Section 69A

highest fact finding authority must be certain enough that the impugned order before it has been passed on merits and is a speaking order where the assessee has also complied during the process of litigation. In case, where the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) itself is ex-parte ... framework of the Act, Ld. CIT(Appeals) is the first appellate authority where an appeal by assessee it would be substantially decided through a speaking order by the Ld. CIT(Appeals). When this part is over and either party is aggrieved second appeal lies before the ITAT

Ashok Kumar Kejriwal, Raigarh vs. DCIT Circle1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 425/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 425/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 69A

highest fact finding authority must be certain enough that the impugned order before it has been passed on merits and is a speaking order where the assessee has also complied during the process of litigation. In case, where the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) itself is ex-parte ... framework of the Act, Ld. CIT(Appeals) is the first appellate authority where an appeal by assessee it would be substantially decided through a speaking order by the Ld. CIT(Appeals). When this part is over and either party is aggrieved second appeal lies before the ITAT

Vandana Narendra Lodha, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

ITA 419/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / It A No: 419/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: None (adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 250Section 69

highest fact finding authority must be certain enough that the impugned order before it has been passed on merits and is a speaking order where the assessee has also complied during the process of litigation. In case, where the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) itself is ex-parte ... framework of the Act, Ld. CIT(Appeals) is the first appellate authority where an appeal by assessee it would be substantially decided through a speaking order by the Ld. CIT(Appeals). When this part is over and either party is aggrieved second appeal lies before the ITAT

Sunil Melathilveedu Nazarudeen, Oyoor vs. ITO Ward 3, Kollam

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

ITA 363/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sunil Melathilveedu Nazarudeen .......... Appellant Melathil Veedu, Payyacode, Oyoor, Kollam [Pan: Aefpn3764B] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-3, Kollam 691510.......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 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 31.01.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. No Regular Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed By The Appellant Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Kollam (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Had Come To Know That The Appellant

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 282(1)

merely confirmed the order passed by the AO without meeting the arguments of the appellant and dismissed the appeal exparte without passing a speaking order. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. At the outset we find that ... hearing to the petitioner and they will also allow the 5 Sunil Melathilveedu Nazarudeen petitioner to appear personally for the purpose and pass a speaking order independent of the order passed earlier by them on January 16,2023. The same shall be done expeditiously provided the petitioner file his reply

Calicut Chamber of Commerece and Industry, Calicut vs. ITO, Ward 2(3), Kozhikode

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 666/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

allowing the procedure prescribed under Rule 46A, including calling for remand report from the AO, if necessary by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and all contentions are kept

Thomas Cherian, Thane vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Txn

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 776/COCH/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Thomas Cherian .......... Appellant A-2, Happy House, Sector A9, Navi Mumbai Vashi, Thane 400703 [Pan: Apjpc6676G] Vs. Dcit (International Taxation) .......... Respondent Thiruvananthapuram Appellant By: Shri Vardhaman Jain, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vardhaman Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50CSection 53C

order may be quashed. 7. On the other hand, the CIT-DR submitted that since the order passed by the learned lower authorities are speaking orders and based on proper appreciation of the evidence, no interference is called for. 5 Thomas Cherian 8. We have heard the rival contentions

Incme Tax Officer 2(1), Bhopal vs. Swarna Sukh, Bhopal

ITA 691/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

order” of the Ld. A.O which is not a wrong order in law. The order of Ld. A.O is a well reasoned and a speaking order basis records of the case including the adversial facts/evidence/material and that the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have disturbed the said “impugned assessment

Ajay Kumar Rampuria, Tonk vs. Income Tax Officer, Tonk

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

ITA 612/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jhanwar, C.A
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69

purpose of adjudication on merits, I hereby restore the grounds raised on merits back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for passing a speaking order as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Assessee

Vivek Dixit, Kanpur vs. ACIT-CC-2, Kanpur

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

ITA 258/LKW/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: None
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

back to the file of the Assessing Officer, with the direction to pass de novo order on this specific issue, which should be a speaking order, in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee and after dealing with the submissions made by the assessee through the speaking

M.S. Khurana Engineering Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 2171/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR &
Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

upon by the assessee which will have a bearing on the issue under consideration and will give a reasoned finding by way of a speaking order relating to each of the contention raised by the assessee. It is made clear that the finding whether the assessee is a Developer ... file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to examine the claim of the assessee and adjudicate upon it by way of a speaking order in accordance with law, after considering the consolidated accounts and to allow the set off of loss of the transferor company in the hands

M.S. Khurana Engineering Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 2170/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR &
Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

upon by the assessee which will have a bearing on the issue under consideration and will give a reasoned finding by way of a speaking order relating to each of the contention raised by the assessee. It is made clear that the finding whether the assessee is a Developer ... file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to examine the claim of the assessee and adjudicate upon it by way of a speaking order in accordance with law, after considering the consolidated accounts and to allow the set off of loss of the transferor company in the hands

M.S. Khurana Engineering Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 2169/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR &
Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

upon by the assessee which will have a bearing on the issue under consideration and will give a reasoned finding by way of a speaking order relating to each of the contention raised by the assessee. It is made clear that the finding whether the assessee is a Developer ... file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to examine the claim of the assessee and adjudicate upon it by way of a speaking order in accordance with law, after considering the consolidated accounts and to allow the set off of loss of the transferor company in the hands

M.S. Khurana Engineering Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, (OSD)-1, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 659/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR &
Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

upon by the assessee which will have a bearing on the issue under consideration and will give a reasoned finding by way of a speaking order relating to each of the contention raised by the assessee. It is made clear that the finding whether the assessee is a Developer ... file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to examine the claim of the assessee and adjudicate upon it by way of a speaking order in accordance with law, after considering the consolidated accounts and to allow the set off of loss of the transferor company in the hands

M.S. Khurana Engineering Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, (OSD)-1, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 658/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR &
Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

upon by the assessee which will have a bearing on the issue under consideration and will give a reasoned finding by way of a speaking order relating to each of the contention raised by the assessee. It is made clear that the finding whether the assessee is a Developer ... file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to examine the claim of the assessee and adjudicate upon it by way of a speaking order in accordance with law, after considering the consolidated accounts and to allow the set off of loss of the transferor company in the hands

M.S. Khurana Engineering Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Jt. CIT, Range-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 1608/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR &
Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

upon by the assessee which will have a bearing on the issue under consideration and will give a reasoned finding by way of a speaking order relating to each of the contention raised by the assessee. It is made clear that the finding whether the assessee is a Developer ... file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to examine the claim of the assessee and adjudicate upon it by way of a speaking order in accordance with law, after considering the consolidated accounts and to allow the set off of loss of the transferor company in the hands

Dar E Aqram Eductaion Charitable Trust, Pune vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 739/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.738 & 739/Pun/2025 Dar E Arqam Education Charitable Trust, Galli No. 9, Sr. No. 54, Shivneri Nagar, Kondhwa Khurd, Pune-411048 Vs. Ito, Exemption, Ward – 1(2), Pune Pan: Aactd0454F अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-07-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 18.03.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune (“Cit(E)") Rejecting The Application(S) For Grant Of Registration U/S 12A & Approval U/S 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The "Act") Filed On 29.09.2023 & 30.09.2023 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. 2. Both The Appeals Have Been Filed With A Delay Of 293 Days Before The Tribunal For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. On Perusal Of The Same, We Are Satisfied That The Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional Or Deliberate But Has Occurred For The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit. After Hearing Both The Sides, We Are Of The View That The Delay Is Attributable To The Sufficient Cause. We, Therefore, In Light Of The Decisions Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc) & In The Case Of Inder Singh Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Reported In 2025 Livelaw (Sc) 339, Condone The Said Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal. 3. In Ita No.738/Pun/2025, The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(E) In Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12A Of The Act While

For Appellant: Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 36ASection 80G

erred in cancelling the validly granted provisional approval under Section 80G(5), despite the appellant fulfilling allsubstantive conditions for final registration. Mechanical and Non-Speaking Order 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(Exemption), Pune has erred in passing a non-speaking