“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

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 207/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., reported in 320 ITR ITA Nos.207 to 209/Chny/2020 561. The AO rejected the objections by a speaking order, which is part of assessment order para 3 and main crux of AO for rejecting the objection is that the assessee’s case does

ITO 28 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gahlot Construction, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue & CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2475/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito-28(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Gahlot Construction Room No. 329, Tower No. Plot No-28A, Gahlot Vs. 6, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Railway Complex, Sector-10, Station, Navi Mumbai- Nerul, Navi Mumbai- 400703. 400703. Cross Objection No. 82/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Gahlot Construction बिधम/ Ito-28(1)(1) Plot No-28A, Gahlot Room No. 329, Tower Vs. No. 6, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Complex, Sector-10, Nerul, Navi Mumbai-400703. Railway Station, Navi Mumbai-400703. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofm5698J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Ritika Agarwal Revenue By: Shri Raj Singh Meel (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue; & The Assessee Has Filed A Cross Objection (Co) Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Dated 30.10.2021 For The Ay. 2008-09. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Of Rs.5 Cr Which Was Added By The

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel (Sr. AR)

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 68

Gehlot Construction permissible and the assessee has raised the legal issues which the Ld. CIT(A) has summarily dismissed without passing any speaking order. Therefore, the assessee has preferred the CO. 7. Supporting the action of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition, the Ld. AR submitted that

ACIT, CC-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Lepl Projects Limited, Vijayawada

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 345/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.K.J. Rao, CIT-DR

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

opinion that this issue needs to be remanded back to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to verify and pass a reasoned speaking order. The order of ld.CIT(A) is considered to be cryptic and non-speaking, because he has failed to exercise the powers bestowed upon

Kamakshi Jute Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. Dcic, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, ITA No. 1073/KOL/2023 is dismissed

ITA 1073/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Accordingly, the delay is condoned by the ld. CIT(A). But after considering the submission of the assessee, ld. CIT(A) had passed a speaking order and upheld the assessment order. Being aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before us. 6. Ld. D/R vehemently argued and invited our attention to page

The Pr CIT Circle 5 (1), Bhopal vs. M/S M.P.Warehousing & Logistic Corporation, Bhopal

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

ITA 167/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit, Circle 5(1) M/S Mp Warehousing & Bhopal Logistics Corporation Office Complex, Block-1 Vs. Gautam Nagar Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Aadcm7742B Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr-Dr Assessee By Shri Shri S.S. Deshpande Ar Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

Section 35A

facts and circumstances might differ for year to year and CIT(A) hasn't stated facts and therefore has passed a non-speaking order without deciding or bringing the facts on record to support the contention of allowing assessee's claim. 9. On facts & in the circumstances of the case

Roselabs Polymers Limited, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 425/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) For The Assessment Year 2012-13 An Exparte Appellate Order Was Passed. For The Assessment Year 2012-13 One Shri Sagar Vasoya Appeared Before Ld. Cit(A), However The Assessee Appeal Was Dismissed By A Detailed Speaking Order.

Section 143(3)Section 68

Assessment Year 2012-13 one Shri Sagar Vasoya appeared before Ld. CIT(A), however the assessee appeal was dismissed by a detailed speaking order. 3. ITA No. 425/Ahd/2019 relating to the Asst. Year 2012-13 is taken as the lead case. The brief facts of the case is that

Roselabs Polymers Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 28/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 68

Balajiconstruction (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-5(4), Kolkata.

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

ITA 762/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Anup Biswas, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

been considered while disposing the appeal and, therefore, the matter may be remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee. On confrontation of this to the Ld. Sr. DR, nothing objectionable was submitted

M/S. Brightstar Vincom Pvt.Ltd., 700007 vs. I.T.A, Ward-3(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 176/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.176/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Brightstar Vincom Pvt. Ltd…..…......................…...……………....Appellant 18/1, 4Th Floor, Room No.48, M.D. Road, Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007. [Pan: Aadcb2082R] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3), 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 : December 14, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 21, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.01.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 142(1)Section 234Section 250Section 68

capital/share premium of Rs.3,58,00,000/- and he treated the said amount as unexplained income of the assessee by way of a non-speaking order and in a mechanical manner. The assessee had duly furnished all the details relating to the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness ... 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

Radhakrishna Agro Products, Bardhaman vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Burdwan.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1245/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Sm. PujaFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40A(3)Section 69A

required to dispose of the appeal in writing with reasons for decision by passing a speaking order on the basis of material available on record. 2. That, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in having upheld the arbitrary and wrongful addition of Rs.2,65,55,000/- made

Vanpool Consulting and Advisory Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2068/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blevanpool Consulting & Advisory Pvt., Ltd., V. Dcit – Cc – 1(2) 1501, Orient Height Room No. 906, Ninth Floor Rajaram Mohanrai Road Pratishtha Building, M.K. Road Grant Road (E), Mumbai - 400004 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacv2355C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.V. Desai Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153C

noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the AO is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. In the instant case, as the reasons have been disclosed in these proceedings, the AO has to dispose of the objections, if filed, by passing ... speaking order, before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the abovesaid five assessment years. 6. Insofar as the appeals filed against the order of assessment before the CIT(A), we direct the appellate authority to dispose of the same, expeditiously. With the above observations, the civil appeals are dismissed

Metal Industries, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 605/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Metal Industries, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, B-44, Industrial Estate, Ward – 6(3), Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500018. Telangana. Pan : Aawfm8494Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hari Agarwal, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 25/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Hari Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 68

record. After considering the documents filed by the assessee and the submissions made by the assessee, the ld.CIT(A) shall pass a detailed speaking order dealing with the contentions of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 7 10. In the result, the appeal

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Sridhar Palakurthi, Hyderabad

ITA 394/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.393 & 394/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Sridhar Palakurthi, Tax, Central Circle – 2(4), Vs. 6-3-860/8/3, Hyderabad. Lakshmi Vishnu Sadan, Thakur Mansion Lane, Somajiguda, Hyderabad – 500082. Pan: Aikpp8040P अपीलार्थीर्थी / Assessee प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

above, we deem it appropriate to remand back the matter to the file of ld.CIT(A) to examine afresh and pass a detailed speaking order. (RAMA KANTA PANDA) (LALIET KUMAR) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dt. 20.02.2024. *TYNM, SPS Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Sridhar Palakurthi, 6-3-860/8/3

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Sridhar Palakurthi, Hyderabad

ITA 393/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Andhara Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Ltd, Vijayawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

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

ITA 117/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.117/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21) Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Corporation Ltd. Income Tax Prohibition & Excise Complex, Circle-1(1) Rsno.88/2B, Saivihar Apartments Guntur Poultry Farm Road Prasadampadu, Vijayawada [Pan : Aanca8537G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B.Satyanarayana MurthyFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

Section 144

Ld.CIT(A) is directed to examine the additional evidence filed by the assessee and if necessary, obtain remand report from the AO and pass speaking order on merits. The assessee is also directed to place the additional evidence before the Ld.CIT(A) and cooperate with the proceedings of the Ld.CIT

Universal Engineers, Gurugram vs. ITO Ward 49(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1649/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Delhi20 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143Section 154

filing the return did try to fill in the schedule but due to hiccups in the system was unable to do so. 4. The speaking order was provided by the A.O.” 3 2. At the time of hearing no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee

Manuj Jain HUF, Ludhiana vs. PCIT -1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 392/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

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

Section 143(2)Section 263Section 263(1)

assessee. In our view, where the AO has carried out the necessary enquiry and investigation, and formed a reasonable view and passed a speaking order, in order to disturb the findings of the AO and more so, holding the assessment order as erroneous in so far as prejudicial

Rotary Club of Jadavpur Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(E), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1126/KOL/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1126/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Rotary Club Of Jadavpur Trust Commissioner Of Income Tax 6A, North Road Vs (Exemption), Kolkata Jadavpur Kolkata - 700032 [Pan : Aaatr8066R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Indra, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(E)”) Dt. 28/08/2023, Rejecting The Registration Under 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That, The Sole Ground On Which The Ld. Cit(E) Has Rejected The Grant Of Registration To The Assessee Trust, Is That The Assessee Did Not Comply With The Hearing Notices Fixing The Hearings On 08/08/2023 & 22/08/2023 & Neither The Assessee File The Necessary Documents As Called For By The Ld. Cit(E). Before Us, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That, The Secretary Of The Assessee Trust, Who Was Entrusted Pursue The Matter Of Registration Was Down With Enteric Fever & Was On Complete Bed Rest On The Advise Of The Attending Physician. Therefore, He Could Not Access

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Indra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R

being heard. The assessee is directed to file all the documents/evidences in support of its claims. The ld. CIT(E) shall pass a speaking order after considering the same. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 19th February

Q-872 Thiruthangal Primary Agricultural Co- Operative Credit Society Limited, Virudhunagar vs. ITO, Ward 3, Virudhunagar

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

ITA 1433/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 1433/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S. Q-872 Thiruthangal The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agricultural Co- Vs. Ward 3, Operative Credit Society Ltd., Virudhunagar. Thiruthangal, Virudhunagar – 626 130. Pan: Aaaaq 0201C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69ASection 69C

simpliciter confirmed the action of the AO and there is no adjudication on the facts and it is totally a non-speaking order. When a query was put to ld.counsel that from the face of the assessment order, it can be gathered that the AO has given various opportunities which

Rajesh Agarwal, Vidhyadhara Nagar Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer WD 4(1), ITO Jaipur

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

ITA 22/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Batwara (Adv.)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 68Section 69C

appeal shall stand condoned. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is further directed to consider the appeal filed by the assessee on merits by passing a speaking order. Resultantly, we allow the appeal filed by the assessee. 15 ITA No. 22/JPR/2024 Rajesh Agarwal. vs.ITO 7. In the net result the appeal filed