“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

Bundelas Securitas and Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 59/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 59 & 60/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 Bundelas Securities & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. L-38, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 223 Pan : Aaccb6831H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

submissions. Whether the statute specifically provides for it or not, in our considered view, the need for disposal of objections by way of a speaking order has to be read into it as the Assessing Officer CPC, while disposing of the 15 Bundelas Securities and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT

Sinopharm India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 23(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1300/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 Sinopharm India Pvt. Ltd., Unit Versus Income-Tax Officer, No. 403-404, 4Th Floor, Southern Ward – 33(4), New Delhi. Park, Saket District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aascs3650F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Advocate Ms. Sumisha Murgai, Ar Mr. Kashish Gupta, Ar Revenue By : Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.11.2023 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Sr. DR

Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C(1)

dismissing the appeal of the Appellant in limine for want of prosecution and not disposing the same on merits and by way of speaking order. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above legal grounds: TRANSFER PRICING GROUNDS: 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... grounds, however, at the time of hearing, learned counsel submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine without passing a speaking order on merits on various grounds raised by the assessee including a very crucial issue raised in ground No. 2 and 3 challenging the validity

Vijay Ramsingh Goyal, Surat vs. I.T.O., Ward 2(2)(5), Surat.

In the result, the ground No

ITA 591/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Vijay Ramsingh Goyal, I.T.O., A-201, Surya Prakash Residency, Ward-2(2)(5), Vs. Beside Agrasen Bhavan, City Light, Surat. Surat-395007 (Gujarat). Pan No. Acupk 0294 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

reply was furnished by the assessee. The assessee filed objection on 26/11/2019 against reopening. Such objection was disposed of on 06/12/2019 by way of speaking order. The assessee furnished some home loan certificate with his reply dated 30/11/2019. However, no further details were furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer ... recorded in para 4 of order of ld. CIT(A). The assessee in his submission submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in passing non-speaking order on his objection. The assessment was reopened on incorrect fact that no return of income was 3 Vijay Ramsingh Goyal Vs ITO filed, whereas

DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Total Energies Marketing India P Ltd (Formerly Known As M/S. Total Oil India P Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 97/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, D.R

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 40

give credit for dividend distribution tax after verification of the return of income. In case the claim of the assessee is not allowable, a speaking order should be passed. 16. Therefore, the Assessing Officer as well as the assessee, both are aggrieved with the above order. The assessee is aggrieved

DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Total Energies Marketing India P Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S. Total Oil India P Ltd.), Mumbai

ITA 96/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, D.R

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 40

Bsc C&C Joint Venture, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-61(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2283/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 801A(4)(i)Section 80I

credit of TDS of Rs. 12,40,95,837/- allowable to the assessee according to the income offered for taxation without passing a speaking order in this regard. 11. That on the facts and in law the AO has erred while making an addition of income-tax refund ... specific grievance was raised in this regard on which the Ld. DRP directed the Ld. AO to make necessary verification and pass a speaking order. This has not been done. The Ld. CIT-DR concedes to this factual position. We, therefore direct the Ld. AO to look into the assessee

Prakash Davara, Raipur vs. Assistant Coimmissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 177/RPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 177/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Prakash Davara, 08, Gitanjali Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Acupd0169K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CAFor Respondent: S/shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR &

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 156Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

dated 22.12.2016, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) ought to have dealt the said specific grounds and adjudicated the same on the basis of a speaking order. As the CIT(Appeals) had erred in not disposing of the specific grounds of appeal that were raised by the assessee before him, therefore ... specific issues which were raised by the assessee before him, on 12 Prakash Davara Vs. ACIT-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) the basis of a speaking order. Needless to say, the CIT(Appeals) shall in the course of set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee

M/S. Riya Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur

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

ITA 108/RPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss) A No. 01/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Riya Real Estates Private Limited 308, 3Rd Floor, Ceejay House, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai (Mh)-400 018 Pan : Aadcr8769B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 153DSection 250Section 56(2)(viia)

aforesaid facts, submitted that there was no justification for the CIT(Appeals) to have disposed of the appeal on the basis of a non-speaking order without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee company. 23. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short, ‘DR’) relied

Usman Gani Haroon Bara, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-30(1)(1), Old Charge Holder ITO, Wrd-17(3)(5), Mumbai

ITA 1982/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Usman Gani Haroon Income Tax Officer, Bara, Ward – 30(1)(1)-Current Ground Floor, Charge Holder, 218 Kambekar Street, Old Charge Ito Vs. Masjid West, Wd.17(3)(5), Mumbai – 400 003 Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Aagpb9052M Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Goyal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 40A(3)

were co- terminus with that of the Ld. AO. 3) The Ld. CIT (A) - NFAC erred in not passing a speaking order on the matter relating to charge of interest under sec. 234A only on the income returned and not on the assessed income where the tax liability had been

M/S. Sabari Developers, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai

ITA 5388/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Satish Kumar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, D.R

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151

reason to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment. (vi) Without disposing off the objections raised by the assessee by a speaking order before completing the assessment and without giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Thus, the impugned notice issued

Atc Logistical Solutions Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Amritsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 241/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40ASection 40A(7)

that the reasonable opportunity was denied. In our considered view the issue is remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for speaking order. Needless to say, the assessee should get reasonable opportunity of hearing in setaside proceeding related to the ground only. I.T.A. No. 241/Asr/2023 22 Assessment

Telmos Electronics, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-5, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2807/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Years : 2015-16] Telmos Electronics, Vs Ito, Jindal Chowk, Model Town, Hisar, Ward-5, Haryana-125005. Hisar. Pan-Aacft1673L Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2010-11] Telmos Electronics, Vs Jcit, Jindal Chowk, Model Town, Hisar, Hisar. Haryana-125005. Pan-Aacft1673L Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : Both Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A), Hisar Both Dated 31.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2010-11. The Appeals Are Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 40A(3)Section 68

separate to assessment proceedings. 6. The orders of the authorities below are also liable to be quashed being conjectural and not being a speaking order. On the facts and in the circumstances of the matter under this appeal it is prayed that the contentions and submissions of the appellant ... separate to assessment proceedings. 6. The orders of the authorities below are also liable to be quashed being conjectural and not being a speaking order. On the facts and in the circumstances of the matter under this appeal it is prayed that the contentions and submissions of the appellant

Telmos Electronics, Haryana vs. JCIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2655/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Section 40A(3)Section 68

Rameshchandra Budhiyabhai Ahir, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Bardoli

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

ITA 621/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.621/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Rameshchandra Budhiyabhai Ahir, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Pilutha Faliyu, At & Post – Ward-1, Bardoli, Income Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Siyalaj, Tal – Magrol, Dist – Surat, Surat – 394110 Bsnl Building, Station Road, Bardoli-394601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alfpa7625Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 51

case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem

Anisa Zuberahmed Mirza, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat

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

ITA 616/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.616/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Anisa Zuberahmed Mirza, Income Tax Officer, 5, Shalimar Appartment, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat, Room Salimar Society, Adajan No.303, Aaykar Bhawan,Majura Vs. Patia, Gate, Surat-395001 Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Crrpm8862L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144

Kamaldeep Harcharanjitsingh Dang, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 408/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.408/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Hearing) Kamaldeep Harcharanjitsingh Vs. The Ito, Dang, Ward – 3(1)(1), 79A, Silver Oak Farm, Road Surat No.4, Ghitorni, New Delhi – 110030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acepd3949B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)

impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 13. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee could not plead his case ... interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem

Bharatbhai Naginbhai Patel, Ankleshwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Bharuch

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

ITA 393/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.393/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Bharatbhai Nagjibhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, 392, Nishal Faliu, Nava Haripura, Ward- 2(4), Sajod, Ankleshwar, Bharuch, Bharuch, Gujarat – 393020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bpppp4227M (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ashutosh P. Nanavaty, Ca Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 16/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

Section 143(3)Section 249(3)

r.w.s.147 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the NFAC/ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. I note that assessee should not be penalized ... interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS-2), Jaipur

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

ITA 573/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271C

impugned order. Under these circumstances, the impugned order stands quashed and the case is remitted back to the second respondent to pass a speaking order on merits in accordance with law after considering the reply filed by the petitioner on 15.03.2021. 4 Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jaipur. The AP High

Oriental Bank of Commerce Ruhs Branch, Jaipur vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 480/JPR/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh SharmaFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271C

penalty order passed by AO imposing the penalty amounting to Rs. 2 Oriental Bank of Commerce RUHS Branch 2,67,763/- without waiting of speaking order of Hon’ble CIT Appeals. 3. The assessee craves right to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal. 2. The brief ... erred in not allowing the relief against penalty order passed by AO imposing the penalty amounting to Rs. 2,67,763/- without waiting of speaking order of Hon’ble CIT Appeals. The AO passed penalty order under section 271C without waiting for speaking order of Honble CIT Appeals. The penalty

Dam Capital Advisors Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1991/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 43BSection 92E

these three situations is objected to by the taxpayer, then AO must consider the taxpayer’s objections and pass a speaking order so as to comply with the principles of natural justice. If the AO decides in the said order that the transaction in question needs to be referred