“speaking order”

Islauddin, Jodhpur vs. ITO-Phalodi, Phalodi

sustaining the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- made by the AO, ignoring the written submission filed by the assessee and passing a non-speaking order. “ 3. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that the appellant is engaged in trading of agricultural equipments, PVC pipes, hardware ... sustaining the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- made by the AO, ignoring the written submission filed by the assessee and passing a non-speaking order - The assessee maintains complete books of accounts. Each and every sale is vouched by sale bill. As is customary in case of this trade

Sumitra Devi Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Chittorgarh

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeesumitra Devi Agarwal Vs Addl / Jcit (A)-9 / 609, Bhavani Chambers, New Ito Wd.1, Chittor Sanjevani Hospital, Kedarmal Chittorgarh, Rajasthan Fort Road, Road, Malad (East), Mumbai- Chittorgarh-312 001, Rajasthan 400 097 Pan : Aenpa5934L Appellant Respondent

assessee and added Rs.10,31,262/- to her total income. The aggrieved assessee filed appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) passed a speaking order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. The Ld.AR argued and filed a written submission containing

Nelson Yona, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Raipur

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.181/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nelson Yona Near Shiv Mandir, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 006 Pan: Adbpy8725E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

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. Now if for every

Mukul Electric and Electronic Training Institute, Mirganj vs. ITO Ward-2(4), Siwan

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 695/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Mukul Electric & Electronic Training Institute,………………………………………………….Appellant Mirganj, Gopalganj-841438, Bihar [Pan:Aafam8410J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….……...Respondent Ward-2(4), Siwan, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Income Tax Department, Delhi-110001 Appearances By: Shri Bandhu Gupta, A.R. Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 29, 2025 O R D E R

remit the matter back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer to re-examine the expenditure incurred by the assessee and pass a speaking order. 6. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the ld. Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(Appeals) have considered the nature of the expenditure ... Assessing Officer to examine the expenditure incurred by the assessee and also examine the vouchers filed by the assessee and pass a speaking order. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co- operate with the proceedings before the Ld. Assessing Officer failing which

Kundanben Maheshchandra Gor, Umbergaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Vapi

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.728/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Kundanben Maheshchandra Gor, Vs. The Ito, Plot No 1502, 3Rd Phase, Ward-5, Gidc, Umbergaon - 396195 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Awkpg6190P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Chetan Khakhkhar, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/05/2025

case, in the interests of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish relevant details and documents before

Mr. Narendra Kuma Rbal, Keonjhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Keonjhar Ward, Keonjhar

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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 ... merely by holding that Assessing Officer's order is a self-speaking order which requires no interference. Hence, the Bench was of the view, that considering the facts of the case and as no proper representation was made and the other additions have not been adjudicated upon

Chetan Ram, Bhitu Bhimji vs. Income Tax Officer, Barmer

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA

Bench: the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not paid the advance-tax or has not discharged the obligation for payment of disputed tax, thereby contravening the provisions of section 249(4)(a) of the Act. So, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in an exparte order passed without considering the assessee's submission. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an

deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order after considering the facts of the case. We express no opinion on the merits of the case so as not to prejudice the appellate proceedings

Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth, Surat vs. Idcit Central Circle-2(1)(1), Surat

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.84/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ A-202, Parshwa Darshan Co- Income Tax V/S. Op. Housing Society Central Circle-2(1)(1) Opp.Navyug College Surat – 395 001 Surat – 395 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afxps 2264 Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca Revenue By : Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R 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 07/05/2024 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As The Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of The Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2012-13

notice of hearing on some wrong email-id. He has further demonstrated that even the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is a non-speaking order. The Ld.CIT(A) has not discussed any facts or issues involved in this case and has not given any findings on merits. The action

Kishor Keshav Rangari, Bhadrawati vs. ITO Ward-2, Chandrapur

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

Consequently, I direct the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues raised by the assessee on merit by passing a speaking order on merit after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, if so desired. 4. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed