“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

Dulal Bhattacharjee, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 28, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 369/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.369/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dulal Bhattacharjee…..………………………………………...….……….Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aedpb8602E] Vs. Acit, Circle-28, Kolkata.………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, 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 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Addl/Jcit(A), Bhopal [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 26.09.2015 For The Assessment Year 2015- 16 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.15,84,310/-. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass Relating To The Issue Of Income/Capital Gains On Sale Of Land Or Building, Sale Of Property Mismatch, Sundry Creditors & Sales Turnover Mismatch. Thereafter, Statutory Notices U/S 142(1) & 143(2) Of The Act Were Issued To The Assessee & The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Duly Complied To The Notices. During The Assessment Proceedings, It Was Found That The

Section 142(1)Section 43C

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. 7. In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee

Aristro Fincorp Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 364/KOL/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.364/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Aristro Fincorp Pvt. Ltd………………………………………...….……….Appellant 21, Parsee Church Street, Opp. 18 Ezra Street, Kol-1. [Pan: Aaecs0680H] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata.………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agrawal, Advocate, 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 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2014 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,51,050/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act As The Information Received From The Dgit(Inv.), Mumbai Under Project Falcon Regarding Coordinated & Premediated Trading On The Bombay Stock Exchange By Engaging In Reversal Trades In Illiquid Stock Options Resulting In Non-Genuine Business Loss/Gains To The Beneficiary Assessees & That The Present Assessee Is A Party To Such Manipulation. From The Data Made Available Under Project Falcon On The

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Ram Kaur Singh, Kolkata vs. Ward 30(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 359/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.359/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kaur Singh……..………………………………………...….……….Appellant 8, Mansarala Lane, Khiderpore, Kolkata – 700023. [Pan: Alhps2735G] Vs. Ito, Ward-30(1), Kolkata.………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Navans Shah, Ca, 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 20.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 264 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 11.01.2018 For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,78,230/-. Subsequently, The Case Of

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

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

Himalayan Endeavour Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Siliguri

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

ITA 237/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Roma Chaudhary, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

reiterated in numerous decisions of various Hon’ble High Courts and even the Hon’ble Apex Court that an appellate order should be a speaking order and a reasoned order. Unfortunately a perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) clearly shows that the principles enunciated in such decisions ... This being so, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for passing a reasoned and speaking order on the issues in this appeal. 5 ITANos.235-237/Kol/2024 5. We may also mention here that as the order passed by the appellate authority

Himalayan Endeavour Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Siliguri

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

ITA 236/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Roma Chaudhary, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Himalayan Endeavour Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Siliguri

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

ITA 235/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Roma Chaudhary, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Compact Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle 3(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 200/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.200/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Compact Agencies Pvt. Ltd……………………………………...….……….Appellant Room No.1A, 20B, West Bengal, East India House, Bbd Bag, West Bengal-700069. [Pan: Aadcc6607K] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-3(1), Kolkata.….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit, 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 19.08.2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 88 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 Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Declaring Total Income As Nil. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 69Section 69C

Assessing Officer and furnish requisite documents as and when asked for without any fail and thereafter, the Assessing Officer will 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 is allowed

Ajay Sharma, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-44(6), Delhi

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

ITA 2504/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

record. We observed that the ld. CIT (A) sustained the addition of Rs.2,70,77,815/- made by the Assessing Officer by passing a speaking order. For the sake of brevity, we reproduce ld. CIT (A)’s order on this issue as under :- “9. The Assessing Officer citing various reasons

Vinod Kohli, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 35(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 896/DEL/2021[2012 - 2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Ms. Monalisa Maity, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148(2)Section 292B

Appellant. 2. 2. The comprehensive objections raised by the Appellant against the reasons recorded by the Ld. AO, were outright rejected vide a non-speaking order by falsely invoking the provisions of Section 292B of the Act. Also, the disposal of the reasons was in violation of decision ... granted four weeks' time to rebut the disposal of objections in as much as the objections were never disposed off vide a speaking order, but merely addressed in the impugned reassessment order itself. 3. That the impugned appellate order deserves to be quashed in as much as it violates

M/S. Isha Kitchens, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Raipur

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

ITA 243/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 243/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250

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

Gursukh Energy India Pvt. Ltd., 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 238/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 238/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14)

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

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

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 ... appeal by assessee 11 Gursukh Energy India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur 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

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

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

ITA 226/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.224, 225 & 226/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 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

Hotel Satlaj Vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos.224, 225 & 226/RPR/2025 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, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 225/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 May 2025AY 2012-13

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

Section 5

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

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

ITA 224/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 May 2025AY 2011-12

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

Section 5

Madhyani Builders, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

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

ITA 189/RPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 189/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2022-23)

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

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 256(6)Section 3Section 40b

Late Vasantben Chandrakantbhai Raval L/H. Dushyantkumar C. Raval, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 2 (2) (6), Rajkot

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

ITA 203/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.203/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dushyankumar C. Raval Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(6), Legal Heir Of Late Vasantben बनाम/ Rajkot, Income Tax Office, New Chandrakantbhai Raval Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Vatiaka, Rajkot- 45 B Panchawati, Street No.1, 360 001 Rajkot-360 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bqqpr 1046 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Hitesh Doriya, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Doriya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR

Section 144(1)(b)Section 250

assessment was carried out u/s 144(1)(b) of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is a non-speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. ITA No. 203/Rjt/2025 ... case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. I note that

Rajeshbhai Karsanbhai Baldha, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward2(1)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 186/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.186/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Rajeshbhai Karshanbhai Baldha Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Shreenathji Krupa, Nani Deli, Rajkot, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Choravali Street, Jamkandorna Rajkot-360 001 Vs Rajkot- 360 405 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoypb 2671 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ajay Dholariya, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Dholariya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR

Section 144Section 250Section 69

case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem ... this order and the Assessing Officer shall, allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to make relevant submissions, and then pass a speaking order which is fair and judicious. I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee

Praful Arvindbhai Sankhavara, Rajkot vs. ITO Ward 1(2)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 172/RJT/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 May 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.172/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2019-20 Praful Arvindbhai Sankhavara Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), At Pal: Lodhika, बनाम/ Rajkot, Income Tax Department, Rajkot - 360004 Vs Race Course, Ring Road, Rajkot- 360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Gsqps 8182 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Gaurang Khakhkhar, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhkhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR

Section 147Section 250Section 69A

case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem ... this order and the Assessing Officer shall, allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to make relevant submissions, and then pass a speaking order which is fair and judicious. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open

Hemendrabhai Kantilal Parmar, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward (2)(2)(1), Rajkot

ITA 951/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 May 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rahil Dohi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR

Section 250

ITA NO. 950&951/RJT/2025 HEMENDRABHAI KAMTILAL PARMAR,, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोट न्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC

Hemendrabhai Kantilal Parmar, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(1), Rajkot

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 950/RJT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.950 & 951/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rahil Dohi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR

Section 144Section 250

case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of ITA NO. 950&951/RJT/2025 HEMENDRABHAI KAMTILAL PARMAR,, being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed ... this order and the Assessing Officer shall, allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to make relevant submissions, and then pass a speaking order which is fair and judicious. I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee