“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

Xavient Software Solutions India P Ltd, Noida vs. ACIT Circle 3, Noida

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

ITA 2118/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr. DR

Section 251

appeal for non-prosecution. Hence, we remit the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) shall pass speaking order after giving an opportunity to the assessee . 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced

Aaditya Diamgold Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 627/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2017-18 Aaditya Diamgold Pvt.Ltd. The Income Tax Officer 21, 1St Floor Iscon Arcade V. Ward-1(I)(I) Nr.Lal Bungalows Ahmedabad Cg Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad Gujarat – 380 009 Pan: Aalca 4525 A अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/ (Respondent) थ" Assessee By : Shri Parimal Sinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Ramit Kocharthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Appellate Order Dated 14/07/2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Cit(A)” In Short] Under Section 250 Of Sub-Section (6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Assessment Year 2017-18 (Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/ 1054374868(1)), The Appellate Proceedings Have Arisen Before Ld. Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2019 Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of Aaditya Diamgold Pvt.Ltd. V. Ito Ay 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Parimal Sinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 68

Benches, Ahmedabad (hereinafter called “the Tribunal”): “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing an unreasoned and non-speaking order without dealing with any of the contentions raised. Thus, Ld. CIT(A)'s order is bad in law as it suffers from the vice ... considered view that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without passing a reasoned and speaking order , and the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of non prosecution by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) did not discuss at all the issues involved

Aka Ausfuhrkredit-Gesellschaft Mbh, Germany vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 783/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 147Section 148Section 9(1)(vii)

objections on merits, learned DRP directed the Assessing Officer to consider assessee’s claim in the light of the case laws and pass a speaking order. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order repeating the observation made in the draft assessment order. 9. Before us, ld. Counsel appearing

Hireright Llc, Usa vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon

ITA 3413/DEL/2023[Hireright LLC ]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kishore Kunal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Siddharth, CIT-DR

Section 10(50)Section 115ASection 2(24)Section 234ASection 234BSection 5Section 9

vide its order dated 25.05.2022 directed the Ld. AO to complete the assessment by passing a speaking order after considering the assessee’s submissions and for AY 2020-21, the Ld. DRP vide its order dated 12.09.2022 upheld the findings of the Ld. AO. 6. Consequently, pursuant to the directions

Ten Smiles Foundation, Faridabad vs. CIT Exemption, Chandigarh

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

ITA 1965/DEL/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Jitender Wadhwa, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr. DR

Section 80G(5)

file of the Ld. CIT(E). The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to provide an opportunity to the assessee and thereafter pass a speaking order. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 19 .01.2024 (ANUBHAV SHARMA

Ritanshu Mahendru, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-35(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 78/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 251

interest of justice and we remit the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) shall pass speaking order after giving an opportunity to the assessee. In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Order Pronounced in the Open Court

Varalaxmi Gudipudi, Suryapet vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Suryapet

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

ITA 639/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Varalaxmi Gudipudi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 2-1-249/1, Ward-1, Chandrannakunta Bazar, Suryapet. Suryapet, Telangana. Pan : Babpg1188B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya. Revenue By: Shri T. Venkanna, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 18/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/01/2024

For Appellant: Ms. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri T. Venkanna, Sr.A.R

Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

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. I have not adjudicated the other grounds on merits as I am setting aside the orders passed

Jay Jinhasan Seva Trust, Mehsana vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 356/AHD/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2024

Bench: 20.12.2022. In The Compliance The Assessee Filed The Required Details. Another Notice Was Issued By Ld. Cit(E) On 02-01-2023, Wherein It Was Stated That The Assessee Trust Submitted Part Details/Documents, Therefore Requested To Furnish The Remaining Documents On Or Before 09.01.2023. Since This Notice Does Not Specify The Deficit Documents As Required By Ld. Cit(E), The Assessee Filed The Earlier Acknowledgment With Details Filed Before Ld. Cit(E).

Section 12A

dispose of the application for grant of registration of the Trust under Section 12AB of the Act with a speaking order. Needless to say if the assessee fails to co-operate with the Ld. CIT(E) as directed hereinabove, the Ld. CIT(E) would be at liberty to pass orders

Amit Mondal, East Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Burdwan.

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

ITA 1114/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

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

Kand K Computrades Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(4), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1111/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

M/S. Vysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ernakulam vs. The PCIT, Kochi-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 847/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasvysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The Principal Commissioner Ix/639, Edathala P.O. Of Income Tax -1 Vs. Ernakulam 683561 C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road [Pan:Aaacv 5491P] Kochi - 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Narayanan P. Potty, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2024 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Agitates The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 30/10/2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (Pr. Cit) Vide Order Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 30.03.2022. 2. The 68-Day Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Explained By An Affidavit Dated 14.7.2023 By Shri A.D. Krishnan, Managing Director Of The Assessee-Company. We Find The Reasons Stated Therein As Genuine & Debilitative Of The Assessee’S Capacity In Filing The Appeal In Time. The Appeal Was Accordingly Admitted & The Hearing Proceeded With.

For Appellant: Shri Narayanan P. Potty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 269SSection 36(1)(va)Section 44A

erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue and, accordingly, set aside by the revisionary authority for a de novo consideration per a fresh, speaking order. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal. Page 2 ITANo. 847/Coch/ 2022 (AY 2017-18) Vysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. PCIT 5. We have heard the parties

Shri.Prakash R. Nair, Kollam vs. DCIT, Kollam

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

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

dismissal of the SLP by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.S. Emrald’s case is not per a speaking order. In Sum 7.1 We may capsule our findings. There have to be, it may be appreciated, strong reasons for selling goods at rate/s below par, much less recovering indirect ... sought, to eliminate both, the scope for error, as well as comply with the principles of natural justice. His order shall be a speaking order, meeting the assessee’s objections, which we expect would conform to the clear provisions of law, as explained by the higher courts

Town Vividoddesha Sahakari Bhandara Niyamitha, Tumkuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Tumkur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1089/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(3)Section 80P

assessee has been wrongly granted deduction u/s. 80P of the Act and therefore the same has been rectified. The AO has not passed a speaking order stating that deduction u/s. 80P allowed is a mistake apparent from the record. The mistake apparent from the record is which prima facie

Mrs Shantabai Jasraj Lodha, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 1389/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: the AO as follows:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

matter to the file of AO for complete verification of the submissions made by the assessee in this regard and come out with a speaking order complying with the principles of natural justice. The grounds stands allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80I

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

Shri Verdhman Sthanakvasi Jain Shrisangh, Kota vs. CIT (Exemptions), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 607/JPR/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jan 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)&For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)

Section 12ASection 253(3)

needs to be explained in detailed and if that is explained the other reasons for rejection being not considered by passing a speaking order and consequently two line observation the assessee denied the registration. 7. The ld. AR of the assessee also filed additional evidence under Rule

Phool Chand Gupta(HUF), 1/90 Vidhyadhar Nagar vs. ITO, WD-4(2), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 393/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Jain (C.A.)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

letter dated 24.04.2017, the assessee filed objections against the proceedings u/s 148. The objections filed by the assessee were disposed of by passing a speaking order on 07.07.2017. 4. During the assessment proceeding notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued along with query letter on 07.07.2017. In response

M/S. Wrinkle Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(2), Kolkata.

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

ITA 426/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Marketing Pvt. Ltd., AY 2017-18 4. For that the Ld. CIT (A) is bad in law since the order passed is not any speaking order nor the C.I.T(A) has looked into the assessment records and relevant materials to conclude that the order of the Ld. AO cannot ... referred as above, it is incumbent upon the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a 6 Wrinkle Marketing Pvt. Ltd., AY 2017-18 speaking order on the merits of the case by examining, verifying and analyzing the material on record. Since there are no meritorious finding given

I.T.O., Ward-43(2), Kolkata vs. Champalal Omprakash, Kolkata

ITA 1546/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.1168&1169/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Champalal Omprakash......................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Vs. Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................Respondent I.T.A. Nos.1545&1546/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................ Respondent Vs. Champalal Omprakash..........................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Appearances By: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As By The Department Against The Impugned Common Order Dated 19.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since Common Issues Involved

Section 131Section 250

reopening of the assessee after which the assessee can file objections and thereafter the same have to be disposed of by way of a speaking order. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) has held that if the Assessing Officer does

I.T.O., Ward-43(2), Kolkata vs. Champalal Omprakash, Kolkata

ITA 1545/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Section 131Section 250