← 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

Devindrappagouda Goudagera Foundation, Yadgir vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bangalore

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

ITA 2398/BANG/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2025-26 M/S. Devindrappagouda Goudagera Foundation, The Commissioner Of Goudagera, Income Tax Kembhavi Hobli Shorapur Vs. (Exemptions), Yadgir – 585 816. Bangalore. Karnataka. Pan: Aadtd7916M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT-DR
Section 12A

Exemption) shall examine the documents already submitted and consider any further explanations or evidence provided by the assessee and pass a speaking order in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. . Page

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), New Del;Hi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4853/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

initiation of the reassessment proceedings. In case the assessee files his objections, the objections must be disposed off by the AO by way of speaking order. This procedure was settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the famous case of GKN Drive Shaft reported in 259 ITR(SC) 19.The

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4852/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

initiation of the reassessment proceedings. In case the assessee files his objections, the objections must be disposed off by the AO by way of speaking order. This procedure was settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the famous case of GKN Drive Shaft reported in 259 ITR(SC) 19.The

Sh. Rajesh Kakkar, Karnal vs. Pr. CIT, Karnal

The appeal is allowed

ITA 823/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sigma Paradise, Vs Dcit, Km-78, Kavi Nagar, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan:Aazfs9643L (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca; & Shri Gagan R. Khandelwal & Shri Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA; &For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 4Section 50CSection 6

assessee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order.” 5.6 As seen from the Assessment Order, the appellant had filed objections to reopening during assessment proceedings which were disposed

Ravi Prasad Boyapati, Krishna District vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 55/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CA
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) had grossly erred in law and facts of the case in disposing of the appeal by a non-speaking order. Elaborating on his contention, the ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) had without giving any cogent reason, merely upheld the order ... impugned order was assailed before him. The ld.AR submitted that the assessee had suffered the dismissal of the appeal based on a non-speaking order, therefore, the same in all fairness, we restore the file with a direction to re-adjudicate the same. 11. Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon

Ravi Prasad Boyapati, Krishna District vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CA
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) had grossly erred in law and facts of the case in disposing of the appeal by a non-speaking order. Elaborating on his contention, the ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) had without giving any cogent reason, merely upheld the order ... impugned order was assailed before him. The ld.AR submitted that the assessee had suffered the dismissal of the appeal based on a non-speaking order, therefore, the same in all fairness, we restore the file with a direction to re-adjudicate the same. 11. Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon

Pasala Jojamma, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 172/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Ms. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri D. Praveen, Sr.AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

ld.AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing, submitted that the assessee had suffered the dismissal of the appeal vide a non-speaking order. Elaborating on her contention, Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A), without adverting to the specific grounds based on which the impugned additions made ... proceedings before the first appellate authority, the latter remained under a statutory obligation to deal with and dispose off the appeal vide a speaking order. The LD.AR submitted that the matter in all fairness should be restored to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to re-adjudicate

Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Mohalla Kheru, Naya Bazarganjdundwara vs. Income Tax Officer -3 (4), Hathras

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

ITA 6132/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2010-11 Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 3(4), Hathras Mohalla Kheru, Naya Uttar Pradesh Bazarganjdundwara, Etah, Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Aaopg6112D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2025 Order This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.2.2024 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Despite Issue Of Notice For Hearing, Hence, I Am Proceeding Exparte Qua The Assessee, After Hearing The Ld. Dr & Perusing The Records. 3. I Have Heard The Ld. Dr & Perused The Records. Upon Careful Consideration, It Is Noted That In This Case Assessing Officer Has Passed An Exparte Order U/S. 144/147 Of The Act & In Appeal Ld. Cit(A) Has Also Passed The Exparte Order, Even Without Deciding The Same On Merits. In View Of The Aforesaid Factual Matrix & In The Interest Of Justice, I Remit Back The Issues In Dispute To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A) With The Directions To Decide The Same Afresh, After Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee & Pass A Speaking Order On The Merits Of The Case, For Which Ld. Dr Has No Objection. Assessee Is Also Directed To Fully Cooperate With The Ld. Cit(A) During The Proceedings. 4. In The Result, The Assessee’S Appeal Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes Order Pronounced In The Open Court On 15.04.2025. (Mahavir Singh)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144

with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order on the merits of the case, for which Ld. DR has no objection. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) during

Surinder Garg, Panipat vs. ITO Ward - 1, Panipat

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

ITA 6085/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13 Surinder Garg, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Panipat C/O J.B. Sharma, Adv. 72, Bmk Market, Nr Hotel Hive, Gt Road, Panipat Haryana (Pan: Agbpg4166C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J.B. Sharma, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2025 Order This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.7.2024 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Passing The Order Exparte Without Providing The Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee In Clear Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice. He Further Submitted That Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Given Adequate Findings On The Issue Of Jurisdiction As Well As On Merits Of The Case. 3. I Have Heard The Rival Contentions & Perused The Records. Upon Careful Consideration, I Find That Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Discussed The Issues On Merits As Well On Jurisdiction Issue, Rather He Dismissed The Appeal On Account Of Non-Prosecution, Which Is Not Permissible. Hence, In The Interest Of Justice, I Remit Back The Issues In Dispute To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A) With The Directions To Pass A Reasonable & Speaking Order On The Jurisdictional Ground As Well As On Merits Of The Case, After Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee, For Which Ld. Dr Has No Objection. Assessee Is Also Directed To Fully Cooperate With The Ld. Cit(A) During The Proceedings. 4. In The Result, The Assessee’S Appeal Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes Order Pronounced In The Open Court On 15.04.2025. (Mahavir Singh)

For Appellant: Shri J.B. Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

justice, I remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to pass a reasonable and speaking order on the jurisdictional ground as well as on merits of the case, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which

Sunil Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 61(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2429/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshsunil Kumar Jain, Vs. Ito, C/O. Kapil Goel, Adv, Ward-61(3), F-26/124, Sector-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Pan: Appellant Respondent Pan: Aaupj2703P Assessee By : Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15/04/2025

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151

Supreme Court and Special Leave Petition (SLP) of the revenue was dismissed which is reported in 468 ITR 10 (SC) by a speaking order by observing as under:- “2. In view of the categorical finding recorded in para 13 of the impugned judgement and in the facts of the case

M/S. Ramson Sweets, Nawanshahar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Nawanshahar

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

ITA 256/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr. D. R
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

clear that the assessee has not furnished details before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has also not passed a speaking order on the basis of material available on record. Therefore, the counsel requested that the matter should be remanded back to the file

Maharashtra Cricket Association, Pune vs. ACIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 975/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1387 & 975/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Maharashtra Cricket Association, Acit(E), Pune Gahunje Stadium, At Post Gahunje, Thehsil-Maval, Pune-412101 Vs. Pan : Aaatm2192D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 16-01-2025 Date Of 11-04-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Dated 22.04.2024 & 12.03.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Pertaining To Assessment Years (“Ays”) 2011-12 & 2012-13. Since The Issue(S) Involved Are Identical, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar &For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 11Section 2(15)

including the immediate preceding year i.e. AY 2009-10. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking order without himself dwelling into the merits of the case and summarily rejecting the assessee’s appeal based on the observations and findings ... case (supra). We also find some force in the arguments of the Ld. AR that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking order by simply upholding the observations and findings of the Ld. AO without himself going into the merits of the case and has also failed

Maharashtra Cricket Association, Pune vs. ACIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 1387/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1387 & 975/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Maharashtra Cricket Association, Acit(E), Pune Gahunje Stadium, At Post Gahunje, Thehsil-Maval, Pune-412101 Vs. Pan : Aaatm2192D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 16-01-2025 Date Of 11-04-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Dated 22.04.2024 & 12.03.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Pertaining To Assessment Years (“Ays”) 2011-12 & 2012-13. Since The Issue(S) Involved Are Identical, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar &For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 11Section 2(15)

including the immediate preceding year i.e. AY 2009-10. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking order without himself dwelling into the merits of the case and summarily rejecting the assessee’s appeal based on the observations and findings ... case (supra). We also find some force in the arguments of the Ld. AR that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking order by simply upholding the observations and findings of the Ld. AO without himself going into the merits of the case and has also failed

Mahesh Chand Goyal, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1153/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalmahesh Chand Goyal, H-6, Rishi Trading Co., Newanaj Mandi, Alwar 301001 Pan No.:Abtpg9841M ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr.Ankit Gupta, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT- Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 194HSection 194QSection 234ASection 250

failed to fill amounts in it, due to which we are not able to verify the exact amount of reversal. Thus, a non- speaking order was passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer which is against the principle of natural justice and hence be quashed. 3 Since, there is no specific

Regalia Jewels Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT -ACIT Cen Cir Ddn, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 23/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Regalia Jewels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Shop No. 05, Dlf Shopping Central Circle, Complex, Near Savitri Dehradun Cinema, Gk-2, Delhi- 110048 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaccr9572R Assessee By : Shri D. C. Agarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri D. C. Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

were duly supplied to it. The assessee filed objections for the reasons recorded and the said objections were duly disposed of separately by a speaking order of the ld AO. 4. The issue in dispute was purchases made from M/s. Surya Diamond Pvt. Ltd by the assessee during the year

Ranjeet Singh Saini, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

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

ITA 58/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Raipur09 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 58/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 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. Now if for every

Brijmohan Prasad Gupta, Kanker vs. ITO, Ward- Jagdalpur, Jagdalpur

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

ITA 42/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.42/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Brijmohan Prasad Gupta Janakpur Ward, Tikrapara, Kanker (C.G.)-494 334 Pan: Adbpg3007B

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 68

summarily disposed off the appeal of the assessee without recording any reasons or calling for an enquiry. It is neither a speaking order nor it has followed the mandate of provisions of Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. That there is no adjudication on merits by the Ld.CIT(Appeals ... Appeals)/NFAC and submit all the documentary evidences after which the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall consider all the submissions/evidence on record and pass a speaking order in terms with Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act within three months from receipt of this order. 5. As per the above

Kamal Kishor Agrawal HUF, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur

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

ITA 34/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.34/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Kamal Kishor Agrawal Huf 159, Shiv Ashis, Opp. Pandey Nurshing Home, Samta Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 011 Pan: Aadhk4707P

For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pendse, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 44ASection 68

regarding the genuineness, as claimed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) also may obtain a remand report from the A.O and pass a speaking order in terms with the mandate of the statute enshrined u/s.250(4) and (6) of the Act. In view thereof the order

Vivekanand Vaishnav, Korba vs. Income Tax Offier Ward-2, Korba

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

ITA 110/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.110/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vivekanand Vaishnav Office Of Cseb Je Barpali Cseb, Korba-495 674 (C.G.) Pan: Admpv0890N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vivekand Vaishnav, AssesseeFor 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 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

Bijay Kumar Nayak, Balasore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Balasore

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

ITA 73/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Mishra & Shri Himanshu Jena, ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 250

decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. 10 CTR 354 without passing a speaking order. That being so, in the interest of natural justice, the issues in this appear are restored to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication afresh