“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

Navjyoti Farming Private Limited, Belapur vs. ITO, Ward -3, Panvel

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

ITA 1020/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani KumarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

filed objections in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer disposed off the said objections by passing a speaking order. Thereafter, statutory notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee, in response to which the assessee filed

Ram Shran Katta, 257, Katta Street, Jain Mandir Wali Gali, Durgapura, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-6(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 623/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 50C

recorded u/s 153C by Id. AO of appellant assessee 9 5. Copy of objection raised by the appellant assessee 10-13 6. Copy of speaking order passed by the Id. AO to dispose off the objections | 14-19 raised by the appellant assessee 7. Copy of registered purchase deed

Ram Sharan Katta, 257, Katta Street, Jain Mandir Wali Gali, Durgapura, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-6(4), Jaipur, Ward-6(4)

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 622/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 50C

Mr. Rajeev Kumar Jain, Vivendi Building, Sarojini Road, Santacruz (W) vs. Circle 42(3)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5759/MUM/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarshri Rajeev Kumar Jain Vs Income-Tax Officer Circle 42(3)(1), 301, Vivendi Building, Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Santacruz (West) S.O., Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 054 Pan : Acopj0782E Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: ShriRahul KanojiaFor Respondent: Shri Balasaheb Nagwe (SR DR)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 199Section 234Section 250Section 64Section 69

appeal order is reproduced below: “7. Finding on Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 5 It is apparent from the record that no speaking order was passed against facts submitted by appellant. Appellant has clubbed income of the spouse u/s 69 of I.T. Act. Also he has reported

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4784/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 156Section 244ASection 250Section 254

that the learned CIT(A) may dispose of the appeal by adjudicating upon the plea of the assessee by way of a speaking order, in accordance with law and after giving a fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 4. Keeping in view the above discussions, as also entirety ... will first decide the issue as to whether the matter is covered by the VsVs Settlement or not, by way of a speaking order, in accordance with the law and after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. He will thereafter decide the matter, if necessary, on merits

Anil Kumar Sondhi, Gurgaon (Haryana) vs. Peeyush Jain CIT(A)-31, New Delhi

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

ITA 1465/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansh. Anil Kumar Sondhi Sh. Peeyush Jain, 18, Udyogvihar, Cit(A)-31 Phase-Vi, Sector-37, Vs. Gurugram-122001, Haryana. Pan:Aaops3222J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

aware about the proceedings. Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the order of the CIT(A) is ex-parte and non-speaking order. CIT(A) has reproduced the grounds of appeal and paras of AO’s order in his entire appellate order and grounds of appeal. He drew ... this purposes. 4. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR could not controvert the facts that the order of CIT(A) is totally non speaking order. 5. We have heard the rival contention on the issue of violation of principle of natural justice and ex-parte order passed

ITO Ward - 2, Karnal vs. Hardeep Singh, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and cross objections by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1152/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1152/िद"ी/2020(िन.व. 2011-12) Income Tax Officer, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Ward-2, Karnal, Haryana 132001 बनाम Vs. Hardeep Singh, S/O Jaswant Singh, Vill. Kutail, Po Darar, Karnal, Haryana 132001 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Exups 8061 N Co No. 150/Del/2023 (A.Y.2011-12) In Ita No. 1152/Del/2020 Hardeep Singh, S/O Jaswant Singh, Vill. Kutail, Po Darar, Karnal, Haryana 132001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Exups 8061 N बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Ward-2, Karnal, Haryana 132001 Assessee By : S/Shri Ved Jain, Aman Garg, Advocates & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, Chartered Accountant Department By: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/12/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 27/12/2024

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain, Aman Garg, Advocates &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

passed the assessment order. The Hon’ble Apex Court has mandated that the objections have to be decided by the AO by passing a speaking order before proceeding to complete the assessment. Deciding of objections against reopening is not merely a procedural formality but goes to the root of validity ... assessee has placed reliance on various decisions to contend that non disposal of assessee’s objections by the AO by passing a separate, speaking order is fatal to the assessment. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ferrous 6 ITA No. 1152/Del/2020 & CO 15/Del/2023

Pinki Mishra, Barabanki vs. ITO-5(5), Barabanki-2

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

ITA 223/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 142(1)Section 144

sufficient time and opportunity to the assessee. The learned AR for the assessee further submitted that the learned CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on merits and dismissed the assessee’s appeal in a summary manner in violation of the provisions ... further submitted that the learned CIT(A) is duty bound u/s 250(6) of the IT Act to pass a speaking order on various grounds of appeal, on merits, but learned CIT(A) failed to do so. In view of the foregoing, learned AR for the assessee submitted, the impugned

Pink City Jewel House Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur

ITA 598/JPR/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Saurav Harsh, Adv.&

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144oSection 14ASection 263Section 69

clear that he set-aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to investigate the issue and pass a speaking order. In our considered view, this approach of the Ld. Pr. CIT is erroneous as the law is clear that the Ld. Pr. CIT either he can make enquiry

Kalpana Kannangath Kutty, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissionr of Income Tax Circle-11(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4896/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am Kalpana Kannangath Kutty Assistant Commissioner Of Income Flat No. 4506, 45Th Floor, Tower 4, Tax Circle – 112(1), Mumbai Vs. Crescent Bay, Jerbai Wadia Road, Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Road, Parel, Mumbai – 400012. Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Agipk4160H (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Rutuja Pawar (Virtually Present) A/W. Ms. Sneha More Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Ramachandran, Sr,. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2006-07. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Of The Appellant & In Law Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Upholding The Infructuous Penalty Of Rs. 5,89,279/- Wrongly Levied For A.Y. 2006-07. 2) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Of The Appellant & In Law Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Considering The Penalty Order Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Ld. Ao Prior To Passing Of Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Which Is Dated 19.12.2008. 2 Kalpana Kannangath Kutty

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja Pawar (Virtually Present) a/w. Ms. Sneha MoreFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Ramachandran, Sr,. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275Section 40

Appellate Authority has also dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without getting into the facts of the case and neither was it a speaking order were the ld. CIT(A) has failed to discuss these facts. There is no iota of doubt that the ld. AO has erred

Tara Constructions, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Pune

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

ITA 531/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

remand report from the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and then after obtaining comments of the assessee to such remand report, shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law. All the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes. 20 Tara Constructions 11. In the result

Prasad Ashokchand Kunkulol, Aurangabad vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Aurangabad

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

ITA 337/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.336 & 337/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 271DSection 68

assessee to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details and adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with law and then pass a speaking order. In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the issue, we set- aside the impugned order. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and make

Prasad Ashokchand Kunkulol, Aurangabad vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Aurangabad

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

ITA 336/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.336 & 337/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 271DSection 68

Mayur Ashik Melvanki, Ichalkaranji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ichalkaranji

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

ITA 2292/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

than remitting the issue to ld. AO. On due consideration of the same, ld. CIT(A)/NFAC 5 Mayur Ashok Melvanki shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing

Sathyamoorthy Geetha, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward-13(4), Chennai

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

ITA 2788/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2788 /Chny/2024 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sathyamoorthy Geetha, The Income Tax Officer, Old No.70, New No.15, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward-13(4), Kumaran Colony, Chennai First Street, Vadapalani, Chennai-600 026. [Pan: Botpg5781E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant)

For Appellant: Ms.Samyuktha BanusekarFor Respondent: Ms.V.Aswathy, JCIT

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 250

direct the Ld. AO to readjudicate the matter de novo by examining the matter afresh in accordance with law and by passing a speaking order. Reliance in this regard is placed upon :- 4 -: the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

Vishnu Prasad Thayalan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2779/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2779 /Chny/2024 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vishnu Prasad Thayalan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.41, General Patters Road, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai-600 002. Non-Corp Circle-7(1), [Pan: Aafpp5144F] Chennai

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkataraman, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.V.Aswathy, JCIT

Section 250Section 57

direct the Ld. AO to readjudicate the matter de novo by examining the matter afresh in accordance with law and by passing a speaking order. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

Senthilkumar, Pattukkottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Thanjavur

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

ITA 2778/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2778 /Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Senthilkumar, The Income Tax Officer, No.41/D4, Mudipoondar Nagar, Vs. Ward-1, Aranthangi Main Road, Thanjavur. Pattukottai, Tamil Nadu-641601 [Pan: Arpps6436G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By Shri G.Akash, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By Ms.V.Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1066440699(1) Dated 05.07.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), For The

Section 143(2)Section 250

direct the Ld. AO to readjudicate the matter de novo by examining the matter afresh in accordance with law and by passing a speaking order subject to the assesse paying a cost of Rs.5000/- to be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon'ble High Court

DB 69 Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT Exemption, Chennai

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

ITA 2776/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2776 /Chny/2024 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: - Db 69 Trust, Commissioner Of Income Tax No.112 Vairams Fourth Floor, Vs. (Exemption), Chennai Sir Theagaraya Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aabtd4253B] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Arjun Suresh, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Notice No.Itba/Exm/F/Exm45/2024-25/1067718822(1) Dated 19.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption). Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S Exm45 Dated 19.08.2024 Passed By Cit(E), Chennai. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Suresh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 80G(5)

issue and we direct him to readjudicate the matter de novo by examining the matter afresh in accordance with law and by passing a speaking order. The Ld.PCIT(E ), Chennai shall give due opportunities of being heard to the assesse and it shall be bounden upon the assesse to comply

Krishnaveni, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw-2(3), Madurai

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

ITA 2318/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2318 /Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S.Krishnaveni The Income Tax Officer, No.18B, South Street, Non-Corpn Ward-2(3) Singarayar Colony, Madurai Bibikulam, Madurai-625002. [Pan: Clfpk4336P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.L.Sweety, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Ms.L.Sweety, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.N.Dhandapani, CIT

Section 250

Vivek Ramrao Paraskar, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner 32(2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5821/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh

Section 143(3)

provided. I am constrained to agree with the approach adopted by the AO in making the addition. The AO has passed a reasoned and speaking order considering all the facts and the circumstances of the case and no interference with the order of the AO is called for. The grounds