“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

Infobeans Technologies Limited, Indore, M.P vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Indore - 1, Indore, M.P

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed being devoid of

ITA 371/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: S/Sh.SN Agrawal & Ritesh Jain, ARs

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 154Section 263

accounting part and unfortunately the AO has never travelled beyond the first stage , and has completed the assessment vide a cryptic non speaking order without reasons. He prays for upholding of the order of the Ld. PCIT. 25. We have heard the rival submission, and considered the materials on record

Dev Plast Industries, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer(Ward-1), Jaipur

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

ITA 321/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dileep Shivpuri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT -DR a

Section 250Section 71

provisions of Section 71 of the Act. He further submitted that it is a trite law that any appellate order should be a speaking order, giving the facts of the case, the arguments advanced and M/S. DEV PLAST INDUTRIES VS ITO, WARD 1, JAIPUR the reasoning behind the decision arrived ... further submitted that the ld. Addl. CIT(A) has not done this, and his non-speaking order deserves to be quashed / set aside. The assessee may be allowed the adjustment of losses inter-head and his returned income accepted. To support his arguments, the ld. AR of the assessee

Surendra Mangaldas Shah, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2035/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2013-14 Surendra Mangaldas Shah, Huf The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) G/7, Amola Chambers Vs Ahmedabad. Cg Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aachs 6590 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate Assessee By : Adjournment Application Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Adjournment Application

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

peak credit computation and the bank statements submitted by the assessee. The rejection of the assessee’s claim without verification and without a speaking order dealing with the evidence cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 9. In view of the foregoing, we are of the considered opinion that

Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust, Pune vs. CIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 1552/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrashri Mukund Bhavan Trust Cit (Exemption), Pune 1105, Raviwar Peth, Mukund Vs. Bhavan, Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaats5170R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.L. Jain Department By : Shri Mallikarjun Utture, Cit Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjun Utture, CIT

Section 12ASection 13(1)(a)

submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) has considered each and every aspect of the submissions made by the 19 assessee and has passed a speaking order. Therefore, the same should be upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee be dismissed. 26. We have heard the rival arguments made

Sima Dhara, Kismat Apurbapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, Chinsurah

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1225/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1225/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sima Dhara………………………...……………………………..….……….Appellant Kismat Apurbapur, Natun Bazar, Singur, Hooghly, W.B. – 712409. [Pan: Admpd1772F] Vs. Ito, Chinsurah……….....……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Susanta Kr. Mukherjee, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Lovish Shelly, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 29, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 22.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Running A Petrol Pump Under The Proprietorship Concern Of M/S Freedom Fighter Service Station. The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.34,09,050/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass Followed By Notices Issued U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 15.10.2019 By

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 69A

filed by the assessee and provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue in accordance with law by passing speaking order. I.T.A. No.1225/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sima Dhara 7. In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

M/S. Trimble Information Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3266/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms.C. Sowndarya, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

diligent in appearing before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) is directed M/s. Trimble Information Technologies – India Pvt. Ltd. :: 6 :: to pass speaking order on the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in accordance to law. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical