“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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai vs. Rashmi Lakhotia, Durg

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 244/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 244/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2020-21)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

necessary modifications. If there were lapses in the order of Ld. AO qua the description in the order making it a non- speaking order, Ld. CIT(A) by himself or through Ld. AO could have ensured to effect necessary corrections or to remove any irregularity. It is also incumbent upon

Sandeep Kaur Gill, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Raipur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 237/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 237/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

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

Tribal Educational Agricultural and Medical Society, Suryapara, Sitapur, Sarguja vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur

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

ITA 231/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.231/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Tribal Educational Agricultural & Medical Society Suryapara, Sitapur, Sarguja (C.G.)-497 111 Pan: Aacat2764M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

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

Hotel Satlaj, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 228/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.227 & 228/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Hotel Satlaj Jail Road Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfh3600A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 5

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 9 Hotel Satlaj Vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Raipur ITA Nos. 227 & 228/RPR/2025 litigation. In case ... 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

Hotel Satlaj, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 227/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 5

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 9 Hotel Satlaj Vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Raipur ITA Nos. 227 & 228/RPR/2025 litigation. In case ... 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

Neeraja Jain, Unique Nursing Home vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Bilaspur

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

ITA 191/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.191/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Neerja Jain Unique Nursing Home Old Bus Stand Road, Telipara, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Adipn7468C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69C

substantiate before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC regarding the genuineness, as claimed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall pass a speaking order in terms with the mandate of the statute enshrined u/s.250(4) and (6) of the Act. I order accordingly. 8. As per the above terms

Smt. Yogita Devi Sahu, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 183/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.182 & 183/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Yogita Devi Sahu W/O. Late Sri Tikaram Sahu, C/O. Sri Sujit Kumar Sahu Vindhya Vasini Nagar, Nayak Bandha, Abhanpur Dist. Raipur-493 661 (C.G.) Pan: Cdtps1353N ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 5

Smt. Yogita Devi Sahu, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 182/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 5

Trilok Chand Jaiswal, Sakti vs. ITO Ward 2(1) Bilaspur, Vyapar Vihar

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

ITA 180/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Trilok Chand Jaiswal Main Road, Near Santoshi Mandir, Sakti Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh-495 689 Pan: Aewpj9961R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Namrata Kayarwa, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priynaka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 68

evidence and should have called for a remand report from the A.O regarding those additional evidences and thereafter, should have come up with a speaking order. However, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has miserably failed to do this exercise which therefore renders the order legally untenable since the substantive rights

Sunbond Ceramic Private Limited, Morbi vs. JCIT, Morbi Range, Morbi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, to the extent indicated above

ITA 739/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.739/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav,Ld. Sr-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 44ASection 68

source. The Learned DR further stated thatLd.CIT(A) did not pass elaborate order and order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is not a speaking order. Hence, Ld.Sr-DR for the Revenue requested the Bench to remit this matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A), with a direction to pass ... speaking order in accordance with law. 12. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings

Kamlesh Kumar Verma, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Kanpur

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

ITA 91/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

considered view, in view of section 250(6) of the I. T. Act, that the learned CIT(A) has statutory duty to pass a speaking order on merits on the ground of appeal filed by the assessee. Having regard to the same, we set aside the impugned appellate order dated

Anil Kumar 244 Dehar Naraingarh Ambala, Ambala vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Ambala, Ambala

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1225/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Garg, C.A (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 69A

denovo adjudication. The AO shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee to furnish relevant documents and explanations and shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/05/2025) मनोज कुमार अ"वाल

Torrent Energy Limited (Now Merged With Torrent Power Limited), Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 160/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2011-12 Torrent Energy Limited The Acit, Cir.4(1)(1) (Now Merged With Torrent Power Ltd) Ahmedabad. Samanvay, 600, Tapovan Ambawadi, Ahmedabad Pan : Aacct 8570 B (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ar : Smt.Trupti Patel, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, AR

Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 254Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. [(1998) 233 ITR 468 (SC)]. Adequate opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the assessee, and a reasoned speaking order shall be passed in accordance with law. 21. Before parting, we deem it necessary to place on record our serious concern over the manner

Sewagunj Foundation, Pune vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 867/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2025

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.Y. Chavan, CIT(A)-9, Pune

Section 12A

Ld.CIT(E) for deciding the application for registration u/s. 12A and 80G(5) of the Act in accordance with law by way of passing speaking order. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. All the grounds of appeals raised

Sewagunj Foundation, Pune vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 866/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2025

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.Y. Chavan, CIT(A)-9, Pune

Section 12A

Popatlal Tejraj Gandhi, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward11(1), Pune

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

ITA 855/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)

support of grounds of appeal based on which the Ld. CIT(A) shall decide the appeal in accordance with law by way of passing speaking order. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21.05.2025. [VINAY BHAMORE] [MANISH

Vaijanti Jitendra Medtia, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Pune

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

ITA 850/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. Pathak, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl. CIT

Section 250(6)

support of grounds of appeal based on which the Ld. CIT(A) shall decide the issues in accordance with law by way of passing speaking order as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Young Network Foundation, Jalgaon vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 845/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2025

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.Y. Chavan, CIT(A)-9, Pune

Section 12ASection 80G(5)

shall decide the application for approval u/s. 80G(5) of the Act in accordance with law by way of passing speaking order. Grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 3 ITA.No.845/PUN./2025 (Young Network Foundation) 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee

Rajesh Mangilal Khandelwal, Pune vs. ITO Ward-7(1), Pune

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

ITA 251/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh Kahndelwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.CIT

Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

support of grounds of appeal based on which the Ld. CIT(A) shall decide in accordance with law by way of passing a speaking order as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. Grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, appeal

Upashan Debnath, Nadia vs. ITO, Ward 41(3), Nadia

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 378/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.378/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Upashan Debnath……..………………………………………...….……….Appellant Vill. Nagarukhra, P.S.Haringhata, Haringhata, Nadia, West Bengal – 741257. [Pan: Axfpd1830M] Vs. Ito, Ward-41(3), Kolkata.………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Roychowdhury, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Addl/Jcit(A)-12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 266 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Such Delay Explaining Reasons For The Delay. We, After Perusing The Petition Made In The Application, Satisfy That There Were Bona Fide & Sufficient Reasons For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay & Admit This Appeal For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 11.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2015- 16 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,59,440/-. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act & Selected For

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 44A

when asked for without any fail and in case, the assessee fails to appear in remand proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) may pass a speaking order in accordance with law on the basis of materials available on record. 8. In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee