“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

Block Education Officer, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Bhilai, Durg

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

ITA 366/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.364 To 368/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2016-17 Block Education Officer G.E. Road, Durg-491 001 (C.G.) Pan: Jbpbo1308G

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

Block Education Officer, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Bhilai, Durg

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

ITA 365/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

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

Block Education Officer, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Bhilai, Durg

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

ITA 364/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

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

Sidheshwar Prasad Verma, Sasaram vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (4), Sasaram

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 83/PAT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna03 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri K. N. Prasad, Advocate & Shri Vishal KrFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

submissions of the assessee in this respect was examined and found no adverse inference. It was the submission that this was not a speaking order. It was the submission that this was a case of inadequate enquiry. It was the submission that more than inadequate enquiry this was practically

Sidheshwar Prasad Verma, Sasaram vs. Pr. CIT-1, Patna

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 95/PAT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna03 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri K. N. Prasad, Advocate & Shri Vishal KrFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

Shakuntala Dnyandev Salunkhe, Maharasthra vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Ichalkaranji, Maharasthra

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

ITA 2847/PUN/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Apr 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2844 & 2847/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Shiva and Shri Ravikiran (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 249(3)Section 69A

concerned, we find ld.CIT(A) has summarily dismissed the appeal of the assessee by affirming the action of the AO and not passing a speaking order. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances prevailing in the instant case and submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

Shakuntala Dnyandev Salunkhe, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Ichalkaranji, Maharasthra

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

ITA 2844/PUN/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2844 & 2847/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Shiva and Shri Ravikiran (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 249(3)Section 69A

Acron Hospitaliy Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Mumbai

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

ITA 1277/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

considered the submissions made by the assessee for the reason that the assessment order has no discussion about these issues and is nevertheless a speaking order, thereby making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The ld. DR prayed that the ld. PCIT order ... feasible in any business. 12. The ld. PCIT rejected the contentions of the assessee and stated that the impugned assessment order is not a speaking order, where the ld. AO has failed to discuss the details of valuation or the business of the assessee and thereby held that the assessment

Sher Singh, Panipat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Panipat

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

ITA 2771/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshsher Sngh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 81, Aji Julapur, Nurwala, Ward-1, Panipat Panipat 132103 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Hxgps8392D

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT (DR)

Section 10(37)Section 144Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

documents and supporting evidences furnished by the assessee are to be gone through and the Learned AO is directed to pass a speaking order in the light of various decisions of Hon’ble High Courts and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the impugned issue. With these directions

Ramnaresh Ratnakar, Balabai Ka Bazar Laskar Gwalior vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 19/AGR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is a non speaking order and it appears that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is totally irrelevant and has not discussed either the subject matter of assessment

Shri Sudharm Jain Sewa Sadhna Kendra Evam Sikshan Sansthan, Kanker vs. CIT, Exemption, Bhopal

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

ITA 118/RPR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.118/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2024-25 Shri Sudharm Jain Sewa Sadhna Kendra Evam Sikshan Sansthan Shantipara, Near Bus Stand, Sambalpur, Kanker-494 435 Pan: Aasts6803K

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Golechha, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

matter has to be revisited by the Ld. CIT(Exemption) to pass an order on merits adjudicating each and every aspects while passing a speaking order. In view thereof, we set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Exemption) and remand the same back to his file

Mahesh Prasad Singh, Ambikapur, Surguja vs. Income Tax Officer 1, Ambikapur

Appeals stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 117/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 117/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri G.S Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

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

Surendra Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

Appeals stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 193/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 193/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

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

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)Section 250Section 69A

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

The Motihari Central Cooperative Bank Ltdove Bna, Motihari vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 557/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT, DR

Section 250

rival submissions. As it is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex parte and by a non-speaking order, however, in the interest of justice and so as to grant the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate its case, the issues in this appeal

Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Limited, Ernakulam vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range -1, Kochi

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

ITA 587/COCH/2024[A.Y 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Limited Athani Aluva Adit, Range-1 Vs. Ernakulam Kochi Kerala 683 585 Pan No : Aaack9968Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Mrs. Remya S. Menon, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 24.4.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064318699(1) For The Ay 2011-12 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Mrs. Remya S. Menon, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 250Section 40a

assessee submitted that the action of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without deciding the appeal on merits by passing a speaking order and without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee is illegal and bad in law. Further, the ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that ... obligatory for the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to pass a speaking order deciding the points raised in appeal, stating his reasons for the decision and prayed to provide one more opportunity of being heard before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 8. The ld. DR on the other hand supported

Nitesh Arvindbhai Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1630/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2016-17 Nitesh Arvindbhai Thakkar The Dy.Cit, Cir.3(2) Balaram Cotton Industries Vs Ahmedabad. Mujpur Rod Bagodara Road At Dholka : 382 225 Pan : Adhpt 0858 M (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divetia, Ar : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

Section 143(3)Section 250

ld.CIT(A) will provide proper opportunity to the assessee to present the case, and thereafter decide the case on merits by way of a speaking order. The assessee is also directed to check email etc., if any, sent by the ld.CIT(A) regarding the date of hearing and will promptly

DCIT, Cirlce- 1(1) (1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. American Express Banking Corp. (India Branch), New Delhi

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 165/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

argued that the Ld. CIT(A) had not given any specific justification for allowing 50% relief. The impugned order could be termed as non-speaking order as it did not contain any categorical finding with reasoning in its operating part. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the assessee’s appeal

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bhushan Steel Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1469/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarsandeep Kumar Gautam, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2)(3), Ghaziabad House No. 921, Mange Ram Jatan House, Ghaziabad (Pan: Ambpg5029J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 Order Per Shamim Yahya, Am : This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi On The Following Grounds:- 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing An Exparte Order Without Considering That In This Case, There Was No Deliberate Attempt On The Part Of The Appellate To, Not To, Reply To The Notices Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 144

further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has also passed the exparte order, and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing a non-speaking order, even without going into the merits of the case. It was further submitted that assessee is a senior citizen and due to non-functioning ... with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order. Assesse is directed to fully cooperate with the ld. CIT(A) during the proceedings. We hold and direct accordingly

Abhay Singh Gill, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-1, Raipur

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

ITA 121/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Abhay Singh Gill Ravi Nagar, Shukla Colony, Raja Talab, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan: Bajpg2742P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Sh. Inderpal Singh, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 485/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 485/Chd/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 The Dcit, Shri Inderpal Singh, बनाम Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S Goodwill Elektro Chandigarh Controls, Vs. G.T. Road, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana "ायीलेखासं./Pan No: Abtps8220Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR

Section 69

detail and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is a 485-Chd-2023 Shri Inderpal Singh, Ludhiana 8 speaking order on all the issues raised in this appeal. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere in the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus the appeal filed