“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

Hcl Technologies Denmark Aps, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle- 2(1)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 528/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 144C(13)

initiation of reopening proceedings before the ld. AO vide letter dated 22.10.2019. The ld. AO disposed of those objections by a separate speaking order dated 2.12.2019. The ld. AO thereafter passed a draft assessment order dated 31.12.2019 wherein the amount received by the assessee for HCLT amounting

Ahlstrom Fibercomposites India Pvt. Ltd., Mundra (Kutch) vs. The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

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

ITA 437/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 437/Rjt/2018 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 Ahlstrom Munksjo Vs. D.C.I.T, Fibercomposites(India) Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham Circle, Mundra Sez Integrated Textile & Gandhidham. Apparel Park (Mitap), Plot No.07, Survey No.141, Mundra, Kutch-370421. Pan: Aagca9137M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, C.I.T Dr सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2023 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, C.I.T DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 92

restored back to the AO to be dealt with after considering the arguments raised by the assessee. The AO is directed to pass a speaking order after granting due opportunity of hearing to the assessee 23.1 Before us, no material has been placed on record by the Revenue demonstrating that

Bharatkumar Nathubhai Patel, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Valsad

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 698/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bharatkumar Nathubhai Patel, I.T.O., 704, Rushikesh Appartment, Tithal Ward-1, Vs. Road, Valsad (Gujarat)-396001. Valsad. Pan No. Asopp 2041 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 254(1)

appeal was not served upon the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that the ld. CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without discussing the merit of the case. 3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue supported ... appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The action of Assessing Officer was upheld by the ld. CIT(A) in ex parte proceedings and non-speaking order. In my view, the substantial right of assessee is involved in the present appeal, therefore, keeping in view the principle of natural justice

Suhel Mohamed Salim Bhajjuwala, Bharuch vs. ITO, Bharuch

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

ITA 529/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.529/Srt/2023 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Suhel Mohamed Salim Income Tax Officer, Bhajjuwala, Ward-1(3), Bharuch, Vs S-14, Ahmed Nagar Station Road, Hari Kunj Manubar Road, Bharuch- Building, Above Bank Of 392001 Baroda, Bharuch-392001 Pan No: Ajwpb 9750 D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254(1)Section 68

were made for want of proper explanation and evidence. I further find that NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition in ex parte and by non- speaking order. I find that substantial right of assessee are involved in the present appeal, therefore, considering the fact and circumstances of the case

The Synthetic & Art Silk Mills Research Association, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exem), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1833/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 10(21)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)Section 263Section 35(1)(ii)

section 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act dated 04.04.2022 with a direction to conduct the assessment proceedings focusing on the impugned issued and pass speaking order carefully enumerating facts, circumstances, verification and findings. 11. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the AO though has passed the order under section

Idana Pet Industries P. Ltd., Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

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

ITA 330/JODH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250oSection 40A(2)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

relative u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) passed a speaking order and upheld the assessment order. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. I.T.A. Nos. 329 to 330/Jodh/2023 4 Assessment Year

Idana Pet Industries P. Ltd., Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

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

ITA 329/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250oSection 40A(2)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

Pradeep Kumar Singh, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA No

ITA 281/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 280 & 281/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Pradeep Kumar Singh C-1/2, Maruti Business Park, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Coups0118F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

vested with a statutory right to file his objections before the A.O., which the latter is required to dispose of based on a speaking order. As in the case before us, there has been a complete violation of the applicable principle of law by the A.O, who had, despite

Pradeep Kumar Singh, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA No

ITA 280/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

Vrundavan Restaurant, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(1) (New) Ward-1(2)(5), Vadodara (Old), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 683/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Vrundavan Restaurant, I.T.O., (1)-U-2, Ashirwad Square, Udhna Ward-1(2) (1), Surat- Vs. Magdalla Road, Surat 395007- New, New, (2)- 39/1, 4Th Floor, Vaibhav Ward 1(2)(5), Vadodara- Residency, Arunday Crossword Circle Old. Alkapuri, Alkapuri, Vadodara-390007 – Old. Pan No. Aagfv 8310 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 41(1)Section 68

parte order without giving fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the finding of Assessing Officer in a non-speaking order. Order 2 Vrundavan Restaurant Vs ITO of ld. CIT(A) is not in consonance with the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income

Shweta Soni, Sikar vs. ITO Ward-3, Sikar

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeisallowed for statistical purpose

ITA 612/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Decision Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agrawal (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

otherwise, I am constrained to agree with the approach adopted by the AO in making the addition. The AO has passed a reasoned and speaking order considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and no interference with the order of the AO is called for. The grounds

Neptunus Power Plant Services Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 2796/MUM/2023[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2796/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Neptunus Power Plant बिधम/ Adit, Cpc Services Pvt. Ltd Bangalore. Vs. A-554, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc Navi Mumbai, Mahape, Thane-400710. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn9274A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kartik Natarajan Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 14.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Kartik NatarajanFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 3

facts of the case and under the circumstances, the Hon'ble NFAC erred in not admitting the additional grounds nor passing the speaking order in that regard.” 3. Ground no. 1 & 2 raised by assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the tax computed

Amarjeet Sing Aneja, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 61(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2252/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2252/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 234ASection 250

terms of rule 12 of the Faceless Appeals Rules 2021, for adjudication de novo in accordance with the law and by way of a speaking order. Ordered, accordingly. As the matter stands restored to the file of the first appellate authority for ITA No.: 112 and 203/Mum/2022 Assessment year

Shri Bheru Lal Garg, Udaipur vs. ITO, TDS, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 166/JODH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur15 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 206CSection 206C(7)Section 250Section 271C

limitation. Both the legal and the factual grounds are challenged before the ld. CIT(A). But the ld. CIT(A) had passed a speaking order by considering all the grounds of the assessee and upheld the assessment order. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before