“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

Sardarbhai Ramsangbhai Dhuliya, Palanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Previously Ward-5, Palanpur

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

ITA 899/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Which Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 22-05-2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1053040290(1)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 253(3)Section 69A

obligated to pass order in compliance with the provisions of section 250(6), as ld CIT(A) is required to pass reasoned and speaking order on merits in accordance with law, but the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) is a non speaking and non reasoned appellate order which

Baban Tukaram Khade, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Nashik

ITA 941/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18 Mr Baban Tukaram Khade, At Post Village Jakhori, Dist Nashik – 422 102. Pan: Dkopk4540Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(1), Nashik. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Sanket Joshi [Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 01/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2024 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Of The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059661545(1) Dt. 12/01/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Nfac’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Nashik [‘Ao’ Hereinafter] For Assessment Year 2017-18 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter]; 2. In The Course Of Hybrid Hearing, The Ld. Ar Mr Joshi Without Adverting To Facts & Merits Of The Case, At The Outset Has Candidly Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Order & Submitted That, The Impugned First Appellate Order 12/01/2024 Was Communicated To The Assessee Online Through The Web Portal.

For Appellant: Mr Sanket Joshi [Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 282A

adjudicate the issue de-novo in accordance with law preferably in three effective opportunities of hearing to the appellant assessee and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act and incompliance with the provisions of section 282A of the Act. 6. The assessee’s appeal

ACIT-Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. 360 One Asset Management Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4724/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 133(6)

decided to remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO to examine all the issues afresh and pass a speaking order. 7. The matter is remitted to the file of AO with the above directions. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reversed to the extent mentioned

Metro Heritage Pvt.Ltd., Vadodara vs. Dy.CIT., Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

The appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 616/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.616/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Metro Heritage Pvt.Ltd. The Dy.Cit 30-A Vishwas Colony बनाम/ Circle-2(1)(2) Beside Kesha Hospital Vadodara V/S. Alkapuri Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaecm 2161 M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ….. ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 21/06/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 19/12/2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Metro Heritage Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dy.Cit Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)

dismissing it ex- parte ought to have dealt with the merits of the issues involved and decided the appeal on merits by a speaking order observing the principles of natural justice. The order has been passed hurriedly and hence, the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC may please

Suhas Maruti Dhankude, Pune vs. JCIT (OSD)- Central Circle 2(4), Pune

Appeals of the assessee are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in above terms

ITA 1061/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Mr UK Chavan [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 127(1)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

Dhankude Vs JCIT(OSD)ACIT ITA No.1055 to 1056 & 1060 to1061/PUN/2024 with a bullet direction to deal with twofold legal issues and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. The Ld. DR candidly solidified the fact but could hardly pull apart the request ... make necessary enquiries (ii) to deal with each issue under challenge on merits and (iii) to decide the grievance under appeal by a well speaking order by stating therein (a) point of his determination, (b) decision arrived thereon and (c) clear reasons therefore. A conjoint reading of s/s (4) r.w.s/s

Suhas Maruti Dhankude, Pune vs. JCIT-(OSD)- Central Circle 2(4), Pune

Appeals of the assessee are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in above terms

ITA 1060/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Mr UK Chavan [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 127(1)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

Suhas Maruti Dhankude, Pune vs. JCIT (OSD)- Central Circle 2(4) Pune, Pune

Appeals of the assessee are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in above terms

ITA 1056/PUN/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

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

For Appellant: Mr UK Chavan [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 127(1)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

Suhas Maruti Dhankude, Pune vs. JCIT (OSD)- Central Circle 2(4) Pune, Pune

Appeals of the assessee are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in above terms

ITA 1055/PUN/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Mr UK Chavan [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 127(1)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

Madhulika Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 5(1)(5), Noida

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

ITA 1113/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usvs. Ito Madhulika Mishra B-1501, Tower-4, Enchante, Ward – 5(1)(5) Lodha New Cuffe Parade, Noida Wadala East, Mumbai-400 022 Pan No. Asppm 9325 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ganesh Raj Gopalen, C.A. & Shri Kirit Vasan. R. C.A. Revenue By Shri Jatender Kumar Kale, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.08.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

adduce all evidences and furnish explanations on the correct state of affairs before the AO without any demur. The Assessing Officer shall pass a speaking order after taking into account the evidences as may be placed and explanation thereon. Needless to say reasonable opportunity shall be given to the assessee

Shri Hari & Co Owners, Kaithal vs. Pr. CIT, Chandigarh -1, Rohtak

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 403/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

section 147/148 on return of income of the assessee which was subject matter of the revision under section 263 by PCIT was a non speaking order and not a reasoned order. In the said assessment order of AO neither the Valuation Report of Private Registered Valuer on cost of construction ... view that even if the return of income is accepted under section 147/148 proceeding by the Ld. AO the assessment order should be a speaking order and a reasoned order taking into consideration over all facts and circumstances of the case including valuation reports which are more than

Shri Hari & Co Owners, Kaithal vs. Pr. CIT, Chandigarh -1, Rohtak

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 402/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Jatin Narendra Joshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2245/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Jatin Narendra Joshi, Ito 25(1)(1), 401, 4Th Floor, Embassy Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Bhakti Park, Wadala Link Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Near Imax Big Cinema, Mumbai. Wadala East, Mumbai-400037. Pan No. Aabpj 8856 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Mehul Shah

Section 69

learned Commissioner of Inc law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), tax (Appeal), NFAC erred in passing the order non speaking order NFAC erred in passing the order non speaking order NFAC erred in passing the order non speaking order without issuing valid notice of hearing. without issuing valid ... appeal for hearing and then issue notice to the assessee and after hearing assessee and after hearing, he is required to pass a speaking order is required to pass a speaking order on the issue in dispute involved. on the issue in dispute involved. 3.2 On perusal of the above

Shri Govind Balwant Shastri Patwardhan Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 1955/MUM/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2025-26 Shri Govind Balwant Shastri Cit (Exemptions), Patwardhan Trust, Mumbai Mumbai

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT, DR

Section 10G(5)Section 80G(5)

light of the facts and circumstances, we consider it appropriate to restore the matter back to the ld. CIT(E) for passing speaking order on merit after providing adequate opportunity of hearing 3 Shri Govind Balwant Shastri Patwardhan Trust A.Y. 2025-26 to the assessee. The assessee is also directed

Shri Gangadhar Shastri Patwardhan Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai, Mumabi

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

ITA 1954/MUM/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2025-26 Shri Gangadhar Shastri Cit (Exemptions), Patwardhan Trust, Mumbai Mumbai

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT, DR

Section 80G(5)

appropriate to restore this case to the file of ld. CIT(E) for passing 3 Shri Gangadhar Shastri Patwardhan Trust A.Y. 2025-26 speaking order on merit after providing due opportunity to the assessee to make submission on the points raised and discussed in the order by which the application

St. Xaviers Vile Parle Alumni Association, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 1874/MUM/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri MukeshFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, Sr. DR

Section 80G(5)

Xaviers Vile Parle Alumni Association A.Y. 2024-25 restore the case of the assessee to the ld. CIT(E) for passing speaking order on merit after providing opportunity to the assessee to make submission on the points raised and as discussed supra in this order. Needless to say that adequate

Rajnish Kumar, Kurukshetra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kurukshetra, Aayakar Bhawan, Near Community Hall

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

ITA 686/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: This Tribunal In Terms Of Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057118546(1) Dt. 17/10/2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A) Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”.

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 253

Impugned order” and remand the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) on denovo basis with a direction to him to pass a speaking order on merits of the case, which should be a reasoned one. 5. Accordingly impugned order is set aside as and by way of remand

D A Satav Alis Karbhari Anna Charitable Foudation, Pune vs. Chif Commissioner of Incom Tax CIT Exemption Pune, Pune

In the result, the filed by the appellant trust is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 243/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.243/Pun/2024

For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 282(1)

provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and they will also allow the petitioner to appear personally for the purpose and pass a speaking order independent of the order passed earlier by them on January 16,2023. The same shall be done expeditiously provided the petitioner file his reply

Ashwin General Merchants Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-6(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3022/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

decision. Keeping in mind the provision of sections 250 of the Act, it is incumbent upon the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case by examining, verifying and analyzing the material on record. 7.2. Considering the submissions made before us, in the interest ... unless warranted by compelling reasons. 7.3. Since the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for meritorious adjudication by passing a speaking order in terms of our observations made hereinabove, we are not expressing any views on the merits of the case so as to limit

ITO (Exemptions) Rohtak, Rohtak vs. Manohar Education Society, Haryana

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

ITA 2672/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usvs. M/S. Manohar Education Society, Ito (Exemption) Rohtak Cambridge School, Garhi Bolni Road, Rewari, Haryana-123 401 Pan No. Aaatm 6003 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Shri Jatender Kumar Kale, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

Section 10Section 10(21)Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 35(1)(iii)

applicable to A.Y. 2019-20 in question. The CIT(A) has omitted to take note of these facts and passed a cryptic and non speaking order granting relief. Without expressing our opinion on merit on any of such aspect, we deem it expedient to remit the matter back ... file of the CIT(A) for passing a speaking order after taking into account all relevant facts as may be made available by the assessee. It shall be open to the assessee to place and corroborate its stance on exemption of income under appropriate provision of the Act in accordance

Shree Vyaghreshwar Kulswami Pariwar, Pune vs. The CIT (Exemption) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 896/PUN/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and they will also allow the petitioner to appear personally for the 6 purpose and pass a speaking order independent of the order passed earlier by them on January 16,2023. The same shall be done expeditiously provided the petitioner file his reply within