← 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

Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur vs. DCIT (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

ITA 665/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 234A

income in the hands of the appellant. 5. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in not making any speaking order on the various additions made by the Id. AO and has erred in sustaining the same in a summary manner. The additions so sustained

Haja Moinudeen, Puducherry vs. ITO, Ward 4, Puducherry

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

ITA 1598/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1598/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Haja Moinudeen, The Income Tax Officer, No.6, Subbiah Salai, Vs. Ward 4, Puducherry – 605 001. Puducherry. Pan: Aabph 0929C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

case. We noted that admittedly the order of CIT(A) is ex-parte and even the CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order. We are conscious of many adjournments given by the CIT(A) and assessee’s non-adherence. Admittedly, assessee is non- compliant but we have already imposed

Manish Bhupendrakumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 194/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that as per Section 250 of the Act the CIT(A) has obligation based on speaking order stating points raised in appeal, his decision thereon and reasons for such decision. The Ld. AR submitted that in the present case ... dealt with the issues on merit and has not passed speaking order. Hence, the Ld. AR submitted that the matter be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues after giving hearing to the assessee. 6. The Ld. DR vehemently opposed the contention

The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara vs. M/S. Safal Homes, Ahmedabad

ITA 90/AHD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

were provided to the assessee. The assessee raised objection against the reopening of the assessment which was disposed of by Assessing Officer after passing speaking order on 16.07.2018. 3.1. The Assessing Officer issued the show cause notice on 06.03.2018 that is why the accommodation entries of Rs.7

M/S. Shivam Developers, Gandhinagar vs. The DCIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 226/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Shivam Developers The Dy.Cit Plot No.C/1, 1301, Phase-I Vs Mehsana Circle Gidc, Chhatral, Tal.Kalol Mehsana Dist. Gandhinagar – 382 229 Pan: Abwfs 4815 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar & Shri Daivat Bhatt, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashesh R. Rewar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthe Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S.Shivam Developers Vs. Dcit Mehsana Asst. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, AR &For Respondent: Shri Ashesh R. Rewar, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 69C

noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the assessing officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. (emphasis supplied)” 10.1. As agreed by the Ld.Counsel, the assessee has not sought for any reason during the course of entire assessment and therefore

Sanjaybhai Ranchhodbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1225/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 69

response to these notices issued, the assessee raised objections against the reopening of the assessments which was dealt by the Assessing Officer by a speaking order on 14.07.2016. The Assessing Officer after taking cognisance of the assessee’s reply objected that during the search survey under Section 133A

Anil Kumar Poddar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-43(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 260/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, Addl. CIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

further note that in Ajji Basha Vs. CIT (2019) 111 taxmann.com 348 it has been held that a speaking order on merits with reasons and findings is to be passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on basis of ground raised in assessee's appeal; he cannot dispose assessee's appeal merely ... holding that Assessing Officer's order is a self speaking order which requires no interference. 6. Accordingly, we find it proper to remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for disposal of the grounds taken by the assessee on merits, by passing a speaking order. Needless

Sandeep Kedia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 257/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra]

facts and circumstances, we restore the matter in the instant appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh by passing a speaking order after considering the submission made by the assessee and while doing so reasonable opportunity of being heard should be provided to assessee. The assessee

Vijay Kumar Parekh, Indore vs. Ward1(1) Indore, Indore

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

ITA 549/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivijay Kumar Parekh Ito-Ward -1(1) 406-407 Apollo Tower, 2Mg Indore Road Vs. Indore-452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afkpp 3277M Assessee By Shri Abhinava Jain & Sudhir Padliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2024

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249Section 70

para 3), 4), 5) 6) & 7) shows lackadaisical manner in which facts are presented. No cause for delay is forthcoming from narration that no speaking order was received by the appellant and was unaware of this order. It needs to be noted that "for sufficient cause" delay needs ... ITANo.549/Ind/2023 Vijay Kumar Parekh 4.1 Thus, the CIT(A) has stated that no cause of delay is forthcoming from narration that no speaking order was received by the assesse and was unaware of this order. Further the CIT(A) has given reason that no document has been submitted which

M/S. Humara India Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 33, Kolkata

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

ITA 135/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Humara India Credit Acit, Circle-33, Co-Operative Society Limited Kolkata 101, 227/2 Mangal Jyoti Vs Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata- 700020. Pan: Aaaah 8186 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal, Ar Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

issue raised before the bench to the file of AO with the direction to re-consider the claim of assessee by passing a speaking order on the issue involved by considering all necessary submissions made by the assessee before him after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee

M Sons Gems N Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 16(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2759/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhaneshta, Sr.DR
Section 250

same was issued without Document Identification Number in view of CBDT Instruction. 2.That the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in passing the non-speaking order and that too without due application of mind. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in giving finding ... grievance of the assessee in Ground Nos. 2 to 8 is that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing a non-speaking order and that too without application of mind. 5. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that

Anurag Singh, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1199/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Kanika Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154

NFAC suffers from the Principal of Natural Justice having been passed without adjudication of various grounds raised and by not passing a speaking order. 3. That the appellant denies to be assessed at an income of Rs. 28,83,660/- (after considering relief granted by CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

Rachit Aggarwal (Prop.) Ashok Kumar Gupta & Co., Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ward II(2), Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 858/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.Krishnan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 234BSection 271ASection 68

appellant is dismissed.” 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in passing a non-speaking order in a summary manner by confirming the addition of Rs. 87,95,000/- made on account of cash deposited in the current bank accounts

Soleman Estates Private Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1117/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra]

facts and circumstances, we restore the matter in the instant appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh to pass a speaking order after considering the submission made by the assessee for which reasonable opportunity of being heard should be provided. The assessee also directed to remain

Chandra Shekar Chikkamagaluru Jayaram, Chikkamagalur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikkamagalur

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

ITA 521/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri H. Guruswamy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 144Section 250Section 69

give one more opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, the entire issue in dispute is remitted to the file of ld. AO to pass speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order

Neera Dhupar, Delhi vs. I T O, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3051/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad:Assessment Year: 2011-12 Neera Dhupar, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), 1E/15, Jhandewalan Noida (Up) Extension, Delhi-1100 55

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

both in law and on facts by dismissing the appeal of assessee without going into the merits of the case and without passing a speaking order by giving finding with regards to the grounds of appeal raised by assessee and merely dismissing the appeal on technical ground that since

Shri R V Shah Charitable Trust, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy.DIT, CPC, Bengaluru Current Jurisdiction the ITO, Exemp., Bhavnagar

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

ITA 257/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2022-23 Shri R V Shah Charitable Trust The Dy. Director Of Income C/O. Madhu Silica Pvt.Ltd. Vs Tax, Cpc 147, Gidc, Vartej Bengaluru Bhavnagar 364 060 (Current Jao : Ito (Exempt), Gujarat Bhavnagar Pan: Aaets 0593 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri C. S. Sharma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Narendra Prasad Sinha: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 19/01/2024 Passed By The Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai [“Jcit(A)” In Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust & Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2022-23 On 17/10/2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,48,175/-. The Said Return Was Processed By Cpc Bengaluru U/S.143(1) Of The Act On 03/03/2023 & Income Was Determined At Rs.13,64,912/-. This Was Due To Denial Of Exemption U/S.10(23C) Of The Act By The Cpc. The Assessee Had Filed An

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri C. S. Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(iv)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 246ASection 250

regarding breach of principle of natural justice is found infructuous as the Ld.JCIT(A) had allowed proper opportunity to the assessee and passed a speaking order. The ground on the issue regarding charging of interest u/s.234B/C of the Act is only consequential. 6. In the result, the appeal filed

Vinod Sabhapati Pandey, Chandrapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Nagpur

ITA 111/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.111/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vinod Sabhapati Pandet, The Income Tax Officer, C/O. Chadda Transport, Ward V Ward-4, Chandrapur. No.05, Manikgarh Cement S Rd, Bakhardi, Gadhchandur, Chandrapur – 442908. Pan: Bgppp8723F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhay Agrawal – Adv.(Ar) Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, For A.Y.2013-14 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S Vinod Sabhapati Pandet [A]

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 44A

approach adopted by the AO in addition of Rs.12,81,650/- on account of cash deposit. 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

Suryanarayana Reddy Tondapu, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

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

ITA 170/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.170/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Suryanarayana Reddy Tondapu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kakinada. Ward-1, Pan: Adppt 6393 K Kakinada. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Dl Narasimha Rao, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 19/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri DL Narasimha Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 187(1)Section 197Section 250Section 4Section 69

submissions made by the assessee before the Ld. AO which were stated to be not properly appreciated by the Ld. AO and pass a speaking order instead of passing ex-parte order. Under these circumstances, considering the prayer and the submissions of the Ld. AR and the nature of issues

Pahari Mata Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd, Lucknow vs. ACIT Reang-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 19/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 Pahari Mata Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. V. The Assistant 761, Village – Anaura Commissioner Of Near Indira Canal Income Tax Faizabad Road, Lucknow Range-I, Lucknow Pan:Aabap6918L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18 04 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 04 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, DR
Section 43C

C.I.T. (A). 2. The Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred on facts and in law in not deciding the appeal on Merits by passing speaking order without appreciating that Ld. CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non - prosecution. Page 2 of 8 3. The Ld. C.I.T. (A) failed ... Delhi- Trib.), has submitted that when an appeal is filed, the Commissioner (Appeals) is duty bound to dispose of the appeal through a speaking order on merits on all the points which arose for determination in the appellate proceedings, including on all grounds of appeal; and that the Commissioner (Appeals