← 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

Rajeev Kejriwal, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 33(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2981/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 68

restore the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for disposal of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee on merit by passing a speaking order. Needless ITA No.: 2981/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajeev Kejriwal. to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard

Srikrishan Agarwal, Barfong vs. DCIT, Circle 3(2), Gangtok

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

ITA 2625/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2623 To 2625/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2017-18 Srikrishan Agarwal…..……….……………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kol-69. [Pan: Aoopa9018C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(2), Gangtok………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 19, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: All The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders All Dated 15.08.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2623/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. 2. At The Outset, We Notice That The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 12 Days & The Assessee Has Filed Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. Considering The Same & Shortness Of The

Section 10Section 144Section 148Section 250

Assessing Officer with the direction to adjudicate the matter on merits after affording opportunity to the assessee of being heard and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to fully cooperate in the remand proceedings by producing supporting documents to substantiate the case

Srikrishan Agarwal, Barfong vs. DCIT, Circle 3(2), Gangtok

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

ITA 2624/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2623 To 2625/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2017-18 Srikrishan Agarwal…..……….……………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kol-69. [Pan: Aoopa9018C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(2), Gangtok………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 19, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: All The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders All Dated 15.08.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2623/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. 2. At The Outset, We Notice That The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 12 Days & The Assessee Has Filed Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. Considering The Same & Shortness Of The

Section 10Section 144Section 148Section 250

Assessing Officer with the direction to adjudicate the matter on merits after affording opportunity to the assessee of being heard and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to fully cooperate in the remand proceedings by producing supporting documents to substantiate the case

Srikrishan Agarwal, Ravangla vs. DCIT, Circle 3(2), Gangtok

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

ITA 2623/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2623 To 2625/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2017-18 Srikrishan Agarwal…..……….……………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kol-69. [Pan: Aoopa9018C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(2), Gangtok………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 19, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: All The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders All Dated 15.08.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2623/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. 2. At The Outset, We Notice That The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 12 Days & The Assessee Has Filed Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. Considering The Same & Shortness Of The

Section 10Section 144Section 148Section 250

Assessing Officer with the direction to adjudicate the matter on merits after affording opportunity to the assessee of being heard and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to fully cooperate in the remand proceedings by producing supporting documents to substantiate the case

Ramesh Kumar Damani, Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 61, Kolkata

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

ITA 2386/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 80G

restore the appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) for disposal of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee on merit by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make

Stream Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1936/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 250

appeal back to the Ld. CIT(A) for disposal of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee on merit by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support

Sanowar Ali Khan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 25(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1503/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271ASection 282

restore the appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) for disposal of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee on merit by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make

Ganesan Neelamegam, Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Ward 1 Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram

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

ITA 3131/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3131/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Ganesan Neelamegam, The Income Tax Officer, No.116/112, North Street, Vs. Ward 1, Ayyampettai S.O, Kancheepuram. Ayyampettai, Kancheepuram – 631 601. Pan: Aeypn 9036M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Srinithi, Advocate For Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026

For Appellant: Ms. Srinithi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non- speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand ... inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed. (v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order

K Vinothkumar, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-2(4), Coimbatore

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

ITA 2776/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.S. Kaarthick, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Appellate Authority is bad in law and pleaded for one more opportunity before Ld CIT(A) to decide on merits by passing a speaking order after considering the explanation of assessee and the relevant documentary evidences filed by assessee to substantiate the deposit of SBNs each additions while passing ... proceedings without fail and produce documents relevant to support the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee, and the Ld CIT(A) to pass speaking order on each grounds as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Arvindbhai Khatri Sons Designs Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Circle-4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6272/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)
Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 28Section 68

deleted. 9. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. NFAC erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer without passing a speaking order and not dealing with the various submissions and evidence produced before the Ld. AO and appellate authority, hence the additions confirmed by the NFAC without

Strides Pharma Science Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5986/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 271ASection 274Section 69C

Strides Pharma Science Ltd. further find that the CIT(A) has confirmed the impugned three additions by non- speaking order disregarding the submissions and details filed by the appellant. He has not at all discussed the detailed submission made by the appellant in the appellate order. The appellant had also

Strides Pharma Science Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5985/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 271ASection 274Section 69C

Strides Pharma Science Ltd. further find that the CIT(A) has confirmed the impugned three additions by non- speaking order disregarding the submissions and details filed by the appellant. He has not at all discussed the detailed submission made by the appellant in the appellate order. The appellant had also

Atul Jentilal Gumasna, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer- Ward 1(2)(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 488/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.488 /Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2017-18 Atul Jentilal Gumasana, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Prabhat Industries, Gundala Road, Ward1(2)(1) Aaykar Bhawan, Race Gondal – 360311(Gujarat) Vs Course Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aespg4868G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Samir Bhuptani Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : Heard 08/09/2025, Resfixed For Clarification On 22.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Income-tax Act, 1961, the CIT(A) is mandatorily required to dispose of the appeal on merits, and pass a speaking order stating points for determination, decision thereon, and reasons. I also note that assessee has submitted the entire documents and evidences before the assessing officer, and now the assessee

Ram Adharey, Sant Kabber Nagar vs. ITO, Basti New, Basti

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 593/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 69A

appeal of the assessee for non- prosecution and has not decided the appeal of the assessee on the merits and has not passed a speaking order. The learned CIT(A) has statutory duty to pass a speaking order on merits on the various grounds of appeal filed by the assessee

Abha Patel, Kanpur vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Kanpur

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

ITA 319/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147Section 69A

regarding aforesaid addition of Rs.17,94,286/- is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer, with the direction to pass de novo speaking order on merits of the case in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. (D) In the result

Mr. Sinnappa Vanku Waghmode, Vatpali vs. ITO Ward 2, Pandharpur

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

ITA 2805/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2805/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Aakash Parakh and Shri Piyush Bafna
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 56Section 69

ld.CIT(A) shall decide the issues on merit in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is directed to provide updated email id and contact detail to the department for receiving

Sapana Dharmendra Shah, Malegaon vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Malegaon

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

ITA 2217/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2217/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sapana Dharmendra Shah, The Income Tax Officer, Khodiyar Bhavan, Ramsetu, Ward – 1, Malegaon Opp. Gayatri Mangal Karyala, Vs. Malegaon, Nashik-423203 Pan : Belps3009B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjeev Mutha (Virtual) Department By : Shri Manish Mehta Date Of Hearing : 20-01-2026 Date Of 27-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.08.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Did Not File His Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19. Based On The Information Flagged By The Cbdt Through Insight Portal Under The Head “Nms Category”, It Was Found That During The Relevant Ay 2018-19, The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Of Rs.2,91,03,000/- In Her Bank Account Maintained With The Malegaon Merchant‟S Co-Op Bank Ltd. In The Name Of M/S Shree Kakaji Masale & Foods. Further, There Is Also Tds Made To The Tune Of Rs.1,524/- U/S 194A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) On „Interest Other Than „Interest On Securities‟ Against A Total Credit Of Rs.15,240/- By The Malegaon Merchant‟S Co-Op Bank Ltd., Which Has Not Been Disclosed To The Department. Since, The Assessee Had Not Filed Her Return Of Income, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 05.04.2022 Which Was Duly Served Upon The Assessee. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Did Not File Her Return Of Income. Thereafter, Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act As Well As Show Cause Notice Were Issued, In Response To Which The Assessee Filed Certain

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Mutha (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194ASection 69A

aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to his file for adjudication afresh and to pass speaking order on merits as per fact and law after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall provide

Kishor Jagannath Satav, Pune vs. ITO Ward 12(4), Pune

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

ITA 2196/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2196/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Kishor Jagannath Satav, The Income Tax Officer, Fadai Chowk, Nagar Road, Ward – 12(4), Pune Wagholi, Taluka-Haveli, Vs. Pune-412207 Pan : Etaps5826K अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Digambar Surwase Department By : Shri Manish Mehta Date Of Hearing : 20-01-2026 Date Of 27-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.01.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2014-15. 2. There Is A Delay Of 176 Days In Filing Of This Appeal Before The Tribunal For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Hearing Both The Sides, We Are Of The View That The Delay Is Attributable To The Sufficient Cause. We, Therefore, In Light Of The Decisions Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc) & In The Case Of Inder Singh Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Reported In 2025 Live Law (Sc) 339, Condone The Said Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

appellant prays for appropriate relief. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CITIA) NFAC erred in not passing a speaking order on submission made by appellant. The appellant prays for just, fair and appropriate relief. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to his file for adjudication afresh and to pass speaking order on merits as per facts and law after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall provide the requisite support

Sun Power Life Battery Centre, Kovilpatti vs. ITO Ward 2, Tuticorin

ITA 3390/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 3390/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sun Power Life Battery Centre Ito Ward 2 Tuticorin No. 23H-25, Krishnan Kovil St, Kovilpatti-628501 19A Main Building, West Greater Cotton Road, Tuticorin-628001 [Pan: Abnfs 4366 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : Mr. K. Balasubramanian Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 14.10.2025 For Ay 2018-19.

For Appellant: Mr. K. BalasubramanianFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami
Section 144BSection 147Section 148

therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand ... inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed. (v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order

Shanmugam Chinnia Gounder, Coimbatore vs. ITO Non Corp Ward 1(1), Coimbatore

ITA 3366/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 3366/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shanmugam Chinnia Gounder V. No. 240, Sasthiri Street, Avinashi Road Br Puram, Peelamedu, Coimbatore-641 004 [Pan: Afkpc 1564 Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Ito Ncw 1(1) Све, Annexe Building, Tamil Nadu (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Mr. Abhishek Murali, C.A. अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 28.05.2024 For Ay 2018-19.

For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami
Section 144BSection 147Section 148

therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand ... inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed. (v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order