“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

Dinaz Firdos Fanibanda, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Circle 23(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 3499/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 282

deciding afresh and pass a reasoned to him for deciding afresh and pass a reasoned to him for deciding afresh and pass a reasoned & speaking order after, providing adequate opportunity of being heard to providing adequate opportunity of being heard to providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee

Automation Anywhere Inc., Usa vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Taxation 1(1)(1), New Delhi

ITA 3418/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaautomation Anywhere Inc., Vs. Dcit 633, River Oaks Parkway, Circle San Jose, Ca 95134, Usa Intl. Taxation 1(1)(1), Pan No.Aamca9481A Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(50)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 156

upholds the conclusion of the AO following its directions in AY 2018-19 and 2019-20. Needless to say, the AO will pass a speaking order in this regard. Ground numbers B to P along with sub grounds are accordingly disposed of.” 6. The DRP accordingly gave following directions

Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Present Jurisdiction the ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 905/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 148

Statement of Facts cannot be taken on face value and are hereby rejected. 6.1 In nutshell, the A.O. has passed a reasoned and a 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 ... Commissioner (Appeals) is not empowered to dismiss appeal for non-prosecution and is obliged to dispose of appeal on merits by passing a speaking order. 11. In the case of HV Metal ARC (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2018] 100 taxmann.com 4 (Delhi - Trib.), the Delhi ITAT held that where Commissioner

Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1) Present Jurisdiction the ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 904/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 148

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Rajinderkaur Sarabjitsingh Bagai L/H Rajvit Bagai, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 344/AHD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

online before the AO for the purpose of carrying out the above exercise. The AO is further directed to give effect by passing a speaking order. Grounds on this issue are, therefore, allowed for statistical purpose. 5. Aggrieved against the same, the Revenue is in appeal before us raising

M/S.Focuz Corporation P.Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT Circle-1(1), Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 45/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

there is no gain saying that the impugned order/s is not maintainable in law, which, per s. 250(6) of the Act envisages a speaking order. True, there was no representation before him, but the mandate of the law, which is clear, is to be observed irrespective. Non-representation before

M/S.Focuz Corporation P.Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT Circle-1(1), Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 44/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

M/S.Focuz Corporation P.Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT Circle-1(1), Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 43/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

M/S.Focuz Corporation P.Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT Circle-1(1), Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 42/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

M/S.Focuz Corporation P.Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT Circle-1(1), Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 41/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

M/S.Focuz Corporation P.Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT Circle-1(1), Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 40/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

Mr Sunil Shankar Bandal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward.2(5), Pune

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1105/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1105/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mr.Sunil Shankar Bandal, The Income Tax Officer, At Post Bavdhan Bk, Taluka V Ward-2(5), Pune. Mulshi, Pune – 411021. S Pan: Ajkpb8627M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/02/2024 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], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.08.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Act It Be Held That The Assessment Proceedings Initiated U/S 147 Of The Act Are Time Barred Since The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act Is Served After 6 Years. Accordingly, The Assessment Proceedings So Initiated Be Kindly Quashed & Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect. Mr. Sunil Shankar Bandal [A]

Section 129Section 147Section 148Section 250

held that the Assessment Order passed, 6t so upheld, by making addition of Rs.1,13,30,760/- is a non-speaking order since Ld. AO has not at all mentioned under which provisions of 2 Mr. Sunil Shankar Bandal [A] the Act has the income been charged to tax. Accordingly

Anil Kumar Tanwar, Bhiwadi vs. ITO Bhiwadi, Bhiwadi

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

ITA 36/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Nfac/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), But The Nfac Has Failed To Consider It & Passed The Order On Dated 20.11.2023 & Dismiss The Appeal Which Deserved To Be Accepted.

For Appellant: Sh. P C Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

considered view that the assessing officer should hear the assessee’s submission on merits after affording proper opportunity of being heard and pass speaking order in the matter in accordance with the law. At the same time assessee is directed to represent and present all the facts before the assessing

Shri Krishnaraj Buildhome Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 753/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43CSection 50

grounds raised by the assessee, submissions made in support of the grounds and case laws cited in support of the submission and passed a speaking order in accordance with law. Having not done this, the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) is in violation of the principles of natural ... same deserves to be quashed. The following case-laws are quoted in support :- (1) Kishan Lal v. UOI [1998] 97 Taxman 556 (SC) A speaking order reduces arbitrariness. A reasoned order speaks for itself. It embodies in itself the principles of natural justice. (2) ACCT Contract and Leasing Quota

Leapfrog, Gulmohar Park vs. ITO, Ward 29(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1774/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaleapfrog, Vs. Ito, Ward 29 (1), A-14, Third Floor, New Delhi. Gulmohar Park, New Delhi – 110 049. (Pan : Aaatl3565D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitin Kanwar, Advocate Shri Rajeev Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2024 Date Of Order : 14.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kanwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 271(1)(c)Section 3

sought to evade is hereby imposed on the assessee. 4. Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) in an ex-parte, cryptic and non- speaking order confirmed the penalty. 5. Against this order, assessee has filed appeal before me. I have heard both the parties and perused the records ... find that ld. CIT (A) passed a very cryptic and non-speaking order. The assessee also asked for virtual hearing but the same did not materialise. Hence, in my considered opinion, the interest of justice will be served if the matter is remanded to the file

Garuda Marketing Associates, Thrissur vs. The ITO Ward 2(2), Thrissur

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

ITA 211/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Sri. Narayanan P Potty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

satisfaction as to the existence of the impugned liabilities as at 31/3/2014, the year-end. And decide in accordance with law, per a speaking order, issuing definite findings of fact. We may though qualify that ‘payment’ by itself may not necessarily amount to a discharge of the outstanding liability inasmuch

Prateek Jain, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 63(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for

ITA 3153/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya[Assessment Year: 2017-18] Prateek Jain, Ito, 4634, Gali Mohar Singhjat, Ward-63(2), Phaari Dhiraj, Vs Civic Centre Delhi-110006 Delhi-110002 Pan-Aiypj1226D Assessee Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 69A

this issue to the file of the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass a speaking order on the merits of the case after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Comviva Technologies Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 914/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra,AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in ignoring the additional evidences filed by the. Appellant and passed a non- speaking order upholding the adjustments made by the Ld. AO with respect to a) ad- hoc disallowance of foreign travelling and conveyance expenditure

Tejinder Singh Walia, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-30, Kolkata.

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

ITA 1337/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

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

DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Ifb Agro Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 491/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80ISection 92C

down, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) which is a very reasoned and speaking order passed after following the decision of various Hon'ble High Courts and decision of Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal. We have also noted