“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

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Mahaveer Kumar Jain, Jaipur

ITA 469/JPR/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024

For Appellant: Shri Tanju Agarwal AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR

Section 69

assessee filed objections and reply but the AO proceeded ahead and framed the assessment directly without disposing off the objections by a separate speaking order. Even DIN was not quoted in the assessment order. In the hands of the assessee, an addition was made with regard to unexplained investment

Amar Pratap Steels Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 108/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 68

drop the proceedings u/s 148 and alternatively also requested to dispose off 5 Amar Pratap Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO objections through a speaking order before proceeding further. The speaking order regarding objections filed against the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed

Girish Ratanlal Murkya, Jalna vs. Income Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre, Jalna

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

ITA 920/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri A.D. Kulkarni

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(1)Section 250(6)

fair play to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file for adjudication afresh and pass speaking order on merit after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee who shall provide the requisite support in terms of submitting the relevant

Prakash Krishna Ghule, Satara vs. ITO, Ward-5, Satara

ITA 460/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2013-14 Prakash Krishan Ghule 165/9, Opp. Renukamata Mandir, Sahau Nagar, Godoli, Satara-415001. .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant Pan: Ahspg1542N

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 250Section 253(1)

NFAC with a direction to adjudicate the subject matter a fresh in accordance with law after providing three effective opportunities and pass a speaking order u/s 250(6) of the Act. 7. The appeal in result is ALLOWED FOR STATISTCIAL PURPOSES. U/r 34 of ITAT Rules, order pronounced in open

Vinita Jagdesh Aswani, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Pune

ITA 37/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18 Vinita Jagdesh Aswani C-Block, 1/21, Opp. Gurudwara, Pimpri, Pune-411017. Pan: Azrpa6822E. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Pune. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Ms Vibha Gulabani [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/10/2024 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Of The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057730966(1) Dt. 06/11/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 23/12/2019 Passed U/S 144 Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Pune[‘Ao’ Hereinafter] For Assessment Year 2017-18 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter];

For Appellant: Ms Vibha Gulabani [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

NFAC for de-novo adjudication & decide the issue in accordance with law on merits in three effective hearings and pass a speaking order in terms of s/s (6) of section 250 of the Act. We order accordingly. 6. The appeal in result ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. In terms of rule

Prakash Arjun Desai, Raigad vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Panvel, Cirlce

Appeals of the assessee are PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES

ITA 298/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: MR K Gopal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

aside these impugned orders and remit them back to the Ld. NFAC with a direction deal therewith de-novo and pass separate speaking orders u/s 250(6) of the Act preferable in three effective hearing opportunities. 10. In result, these three appeals of the assessee are PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL

Prakash Arjun Desai, Raigad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Panvel, Panvel

Appeals of the assessee are PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES

ITA 297/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: MR K Gopal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

Prakash Arjun Desai, Raigad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Panvel, Panvel

Appeals of the assessee are PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES

ITA 296/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: MR K Gopal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

Shrinivas Vijaykumar Chidrewar, Pune vs. ITO Ward 3(3), Pune

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL

ITA 1470/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-2015 Shrinivas Vijaykumar Chidrewar A-38, S.No-55, H.No-1, Sadbhav Co-Op. Hsg. Society, Kothrud, Pune-411029 Pan: Ahspc3607Q. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Pune. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 147Section 250Section 69A

aside the impugned order and remit the file back to the Ld. NFAC with a direction deal therewith de-novo and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act preferable in three effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. 12. In result

Mr Shashikant Yashwant Chaudhari, Jalgaon vs. Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Jalgaon

The appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES

ITA 1363/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21 Shashikant Yashwant Chaudhari, Block-8, Behind Gurudatta Mandir, Jijau Nagar, Nr. Wagh Nagar, Jalgaon-425001 Pan: Ahopc8437E . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

novo in accordance with law on merits after according not less than three effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. The grounds accordingly stands partly allowed. 11. In result, the appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL

Tapaswini Mangesh Mahske, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Panvel

Appeals are PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISITCAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

ITA 1302/PUN/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: None for the Assessee [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 253(1)Section 274

files back to the Ld. NFAC with a direction deal therewith on merits de-novo in accordance with applicable law and pass a separate speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act after according three effective hearing to assessee separately. The ground no. 2 thus stands allowed

Tapaswini Mangesh Mahske, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Panvel

Appeals are PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISITCAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

ITA 1301/PUN/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: None for the Assessee [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 253(1)Section 274

Mstc Ltd, Kolkata vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Cir-1(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 623/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Prasun Bhattacharya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, CIT, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 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

Kalpesh Ghevarchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-25(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 3631/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Learned Cit(A) Who Dismissed Assessee’S Appeal Ex-Parte.

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

deem it just and appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits and to pass speaking order. We direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(A) for the expeditious

Provl. Div. Pwd Hamirpur., Hamirpur vs. The Addl. CIT-TDS, Kanpur

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

ITA 96/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 133ASection 154Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 271C

appropriate order. 3. That the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and should have passed a speaking order based on statement of facts and grounds of appeal as mentioned in the Memorandum of appeal and supporting documents. 4. That ... regarding merits should be restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) because the learned CIT(A) is duty bound to pass speaking order on merits. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue expressed no objection to this. (C) We have heard both sides. We have perused materials

New Kable Point, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 268/COCH/2024[AY 2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.C.Krishnakumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Girly Albert, Sr.DR

Section 36Section 40

amount for not deducting the same. The ld.CIT(A) without considering the submissions had dismissed the appeal by passing a non- speaking order, and therefore, the present appeal has been filed before this Tribunal, with the following grounds:- “1. The appellant firm had included the interest paid to suppliers ... written submissions filed by them before the ld.CIT(A) and prayed to allow the appeal since the same were not considered and a speaking order was not passed. 4. The learned DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. We have heard

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2892/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Small Industries Income Tax Circle- Development Bank Of 3(3)(1) India Room No. 609, Sme Development Centre, Aaykar Bhavan, C-11, G- Block, Vs. M. K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Churchgate, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400020. Pan: Aabcs3480N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule- CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

ITR19), the reasons for reopening has already been provided to the assessee and the objections are hereby disposed vide a speaking order. Any further information required shall be provided during the course of reassessment proceedings and all the relevant details relied upon by the assessing officer shall be provided before

Rkw Communication Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed in terms of what is noted hereinabove

ITA 869/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 48

deem it just and appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits and to pass speaking order afresh. We direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned

Kuldeep Singh, Sas Nagar, Punjab vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(5), Chandigarh

ITA 362/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Danish Abdullah, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 253

were provided. I am constrained to agree with the approach adopted by the AO in making 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

DCIT CC- 1(3), Aaykar Bhavan vs. Montecarlo Limited, Sindhu Bhawan Road, Bodakdev

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

ITA 599/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 80I

subsequent Asst. Year 2017-18 in ITA No. 310/Ahd/2020 vide order dated 30-11-2023 and dismissed the Department appeal by passing a detailed speaking order. Ld. I.T.A Nos. 598 & 599/Ahd/2019 A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2020-21 Page No 6 DCIT Vs Montecarlo Constructjion Ltd. Counsels for the assessee further submitted