“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

Bethala Petropacks Pvt Ltd., (Formerly Known As Deepak Extrusions Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Benglaluru

ITA 284/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

ITA Nos.280 to 284/Bang/2024 Bethala Petropacks Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

Bethala Petropacks Pvt Ltd., (Formerly Known As Deepak Extrusions Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 283/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

objections or replies or documents submitted by the assessee and has proceeded to pass the impugned orders, which is a unreasoned and non-speaking order without considering or appreciating the several contentions urged by the assessee or documents produced by the assessee or hearing the assessee and consequently the impugned

Bethala Petropacks Pvt Ltd., (Formerly Known As Deepak Extrusions Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 282/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

Bethala Petropacks Pvt Ltd., (Formerly Known As Deepak Extrusions Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 281/BANG/2024[2012-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2012-23

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

Bethala Petropacks Pvt Ltd., (Formerly Known As Deepak Extrusions Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 280/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

Shrikrishna Gendaji Makode, Amravati vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Amravati

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-15 and 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 418/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Deepak AroraFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 132Section 145Section 69A

investigation conducted by any of the authorities below at any point of time. Further, the learned CIT(A) was duty bound to pass a speaking order which he has failed to do, as his order is cryptic. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it expedient to remand

Shrikrishna Gendaji Makode, Amravati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Amravati

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-15 and 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 417/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Deepak AroraFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 132Section 145Section 69A

M/S Devbhumi Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1393/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. CIT, D/R

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

assessee but simply upheld the order of the Assessing Officer in mechanical manner. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is a non-speaking order. The same is not sustainable as per law. 9. In view of the above discussion we do not find justification on the part

M/S Olympus Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Cir-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1088/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1088/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Olympus Suppliers Pvt Ltd.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 15/B, Clive Row, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aabco0624Q] Vs. Pcit, Circle-2, Kolkata……….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 13, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 23.03.2015 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. This Is A Second Round Of Litigation Before Us. Earlier, The Assessee Had Filed Appeal Before This Tribunal Against The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit Passed U/S 263 Of The Act, However, The Said Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Along With Three Other Cases By A Common Order Dated 05.08.2016. Being Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Preferred Further Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court Bearing No. Itat/328/2017 Ia No.Ga/2/2017 (Old No.Ga/3184/2017). It Was Pleaded Before The Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Along With Other Appeals, However, The Specific

Section 143(1)Section 151Section 263

balance sheet after the change of Directors, if any. After conducting the inquiries & verification as directed above, the A.O. should pass a speaking order, providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” The ld. Pr. CIT accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to passe the assessment order afresh

Joyo Plastics, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-24 (1)

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

ITA 4405/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Joyo Plastics, Acit Circle-24(1), 104, Jai Antariksh Co-Op Society, 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Makwana Road, Marol Naka, Chamber, Lalbaug, Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aaafj 0286 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ajay R Sing/Akshay Pawar : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2024 : 13/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R Sing/Akshay Pawar

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

opinion on assessee merely because auditor had recorded difference of opinion on the claim more so without the claim more so without passing a speaking order on merits of the passing a speaking order on merits of the claim. 2. The learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate second proviso ... passed a assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has not passed a assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has not passed a speaking order nor provided a proper opportunity of hearing. He speaking order nor provided a proper opportunity of hearing. He speaking order nor provided a proper opportunity

DCIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jaymala Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dism

ITA 2719/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Singh

Section 143(3)Section 68

possible enquiries as per Act in order to determine a true and correct income of the assessee. An AO is required to issue a speaking order. income of the assessee. An AO is required to issue a speaking order. income of the assessee. An AO is required to issue ... speaking order. Unfortunately, in this case, the order Unfortunately, in this case, the order is cryptic. It does not even mention is cryptic. It does not even mention the names of the Share the names of the Share-applicants. It is faulty as it does not consider the applicants

Rupmata Multistate Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Osmanabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Latur

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE

ITA 400/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 400/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Rupmata Multistate Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. 26/671, Rupmata Pride, Samarth Nagar, Dharashiv-413501 Pan: Aabar4836R . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pratik Sandbhor [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sourabh Nayak [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 246A(1)(a)Section 250Section 56Section 80P

back to the file of the Ld. NFAC [faceless regime] with a direction to decide the appeal on merits a fresh and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act after providing three effective opportunities to the assessee. Ergo ordered accordingly. 7. In result

Kathikode Charitable Trust, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 948/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

material he deems proper, which constitutes a part of a return. The assessee shall be heard before disposing it’s applications, per a speaking order, and in accordance with law, and which shall be in a time bound manner. 5.2 We may, before parting with our order, clarify the legal

Kathikode Charitable Trust, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer., Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 947/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

M/S.Appollo Tyres Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The Pr CIT, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 72/COCH/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Sri.Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 32A

thus erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and, accordingly, set aside for a de novo examination and adjudication per a speaking order in accordance with law. 4. Before us, Sri. Markose, the ld. counsel for the assessee, would take us through the assessee’s reply dated ... several aspects of a particular deduction. The onus in such a case though, inasmuch as the AO’s order is a non-speaking order, i.e., to show all the relevant aspects stand explained or are borne out by the record, leading to the inference of their consideration by the assessing

Shri. Boregowda Rajanna, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 304/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Kumar Naik

Section 115BSection 144Section 234Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 4Section 69A

which has not been accepted to be assessee's income. We are therefore of the opinion that the Ld.CIT(A) should have passed a speaking order in respect of the alleged addition in the hands of the assessee. The decision relied upon by the Ld.DR is distinguishable on the facts ... with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee and the Ld.CIT(A) is directed to pass speaking order in accordance with law. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal

Home Credit International A.S., Czech Republic vs. Assistant. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2068/DEL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

order of the AO was set aside by the Collector (Appeals) who issued a direction to the AC to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order. However, the AC declined to follow the order of the Collector (Appeals) and reiterated his earlier decision that was set aside by the Collector

Rama Mohan Soma, Anantapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Hindupur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rama Mohan Soma, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, H.No.12-274-3, Bypass Ward – 1, Road, Kadiri, Anantapur, Hindupur. Andhra Pradesh – 515591. Pan : Aocps8172D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.05.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2012-13 Arises From Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dt.27.12.2023 Invoking Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”). 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under :

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 254Section 69B

liable to be quashed. 4. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in not passing the speaking order against the Ground No.2 of the appeal in which the appellant contented that invoking the provisions of section 69B of the Act has no relevance ... liable to be deleted. 5. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in not passing the speaking order against the Ground No.4 of the appeal in which the appellant contented that the learned assessing officer without supplying the copies of the reasons recorded

Flex Trade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cen Cir. 4(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 229/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 228 & 229/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Flex Trade Private Limited Acit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata Room No. 205 Vs 13, B.B. Ganguly Street Kolkata - 700012 [Pan : Aaacf6723A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Arun Kanti Dutta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Kolkata – 27, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dt. 08/12/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds Of Appeal In Both These Appeals But The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, Before Us Submitted That The Orders Of The Ld. First Appellate Authority Passed In Both These Appeals Are Ex-Parte & Assessee Was Not Afforded Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Disposed Off The Appeals On Merits & If It Had Been So, The Assessee Stood A Fair Chance In Succeeding. Therefore, He Prayed That Both The Appeals Be Restored To 2

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Dutta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 250

fresh adjudication on merit. The ld. CIT(A) shall afford the assessee with sufficient opportunity of being heard and thereafter pass a speaking order on merit of the case. Needless to mention that the assessee shall produce all necessary documents/evidence in support of its claims and shall co-operate till

Flex Trade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cen. Cir. 4(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 228/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Dutta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 250