“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

Shree Raj Foundation, Mum vs. DDIT (E)-I(2), Mum

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.18/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Shree Raj Foundation बिधम/ Ddit(E)-1(2) 201, 2Nd Floor, Krishna [Now Ito (Exem), Ward- Vs. Kunj, Vl Mehta Rd, Jvpd 2(3), Mumbai] Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Income Tax Office, Mumbai-400056. Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadts9658M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Paresh Shaparia Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar Das (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Foundation Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.12.2022 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Challenged The Action Of The Ao Re-Opening The Assessment Of Ay 2009-10 U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Without Following The Binding Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Ito (Sc) (259 Itr 19) & Jurisdictional High Court Decision In The Case Of Fomento Resorts Hotels Ltd Vs. Acit (238 Itr 38) (Bom) & Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Dcit (2008) (296 Itr 90) (Bom). 3. The Facts Relevant To The Legal Issue Are That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2009 Along With The Income & Expenditure Account, Balance-Sheet & Audit Report In Form No. 10B

For Appellant: Shri Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das (Sr. AR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Foundation Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra), the AO was bound to dispose of the objections filed by the assessee against reopening by passing a speaking order. According to the Ld. AR, the AO has not disposed of the objection raised by assessee by passing a speaking order [before passing ... dispose of the objections to the notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T. Act filed by the appellant by way of a speaking order. 5.3.2 It is seen that in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3)r.w.s147 of the I.T. Act dated 07.03.2014, the Assessing Officer has reproduced

M/S. Steecon Infrastructure, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 61/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Steecon Infrastructure Income Tax Officer 1(4) 85, Subhash Nagar, Pal Road, Paota Jodhpur- 242008 Vs. Jodhpur- 342008 Pan No. Acdfs3423Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Piyush Chajed and Mr SumitFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, AR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

passing the Assessment Order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 without disposing off the objections raised by the appellant firm by way of passing the speaking order and therefore the assessment order is bad in law and void-ab-initio as held by Honourable Supreme Court in case of G.K.N. Driveshafts India

Shri Mohd Amin Malik, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Jammu

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

ITA 99/ASR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR

being heard, in view of the principle of natural justice. Accordingly, the case is restored to the CIT, to decide the appeal afresh by speaking order on merits of the case as per law. No doubt, the assessee shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings. 9. In the result, the appeal

Shri Amarjeet Singh, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2 (1), Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 60/ASR/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Aman Raj Bawa &For Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148(2)Section 151Section 68

raised in rebuttal to the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. The ld. CIT(A) has passed a comprehensive speaking order after granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the submissions made before him after taking rebuttal of the ld. Assessing

Shri Balbir Singh M/S Jaideep Gift Centre Taptej Singh Market, Moga vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Moga Range Moga, Moga

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 746/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 27Section 271D

fresh opportunity of being heard, to the appellant assessee. Accordingly, the case is restored to the CIT(A), to decide the appeals afresh by speaking order on merits of the case as per law. No doubt, the assessee shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings. 13. In the result, both

Shri Balbir Singh M/S Jaideep Gift Centre, Taptej Singh Market, Moga vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Moga Range, Moga

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 745/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 27Section 271D

Madhurittu Puri, United Kingdom vs. DCIT, Circle International Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3063/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay Vasanta, CIT- DR

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 234DSection 270A(2)

vide order dated 09.11.2022 directed the Ld. AO to dispose of the specific objections on the valuation report of the DVO by passing a speaking order. 3.4 It is apparent from page 5 of the Ld. AO’s order that he maintained the addition proposed in draft assessment order

Bushra Javed, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 2(1)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2003/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Bushra Javed, Vs. Acit, D-112, Circle Int. Taxation 2 Lower Ground Floor, (1)(1) Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi. New Delhi-110 017 Pan Afgpj3907C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay Vasanta, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 48

been arrived at. Finally, the Ld. DRP directed the Ld. AO to consider the assessee’s factual submission, make necessary verification and pass a speaking order. 3.2 However, the Ld. AO in his order dated 26.06.2022 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) maintained the impugned addition

Shri Salasar Satsang Pariwar, Belgavi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bangaluru

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 282/PAN/2019[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Y VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

sole substantive grievance seeking sec.80G(5) registration, we note that the CIT(E), 2 ITA.No.282/PAN./2019 Bengaluru has not passed his totally non-speaking order which reads as under : “In this case the trust had applied for grant of recognition u/s 80G of the Income

Shri Murlimanohar Ramkishan Mundhra, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 158/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.158/Srt/2023 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Murlimanohar Ramkishan Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), (Old Ward- Mundhra, 301 To 308, Vs 1(2)(3) Surat, Aayakar Third Floor, Shree Krishna Market, Near Metro Tower, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Ring Road, Surat-395002 Surat-395001 Pan No: Aflpm 6057 P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sudhir Surana, Ca & Shri Om Prakash Soni, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr अपील पंजीकरण/Appeal Instituted On 03.03.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03.05.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 18.07.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Ld. Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 13.01.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.11.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal:- Murllimanohar R Mundhra “1. Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts Confirming The Reassessment Proceeding Initiated By The Ld. Ao, Without Properly Appreciating The Submission Of The Appellant.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 57

notice under section 148 and prayed for reasons recorded. The reasons recorded was provided to assessee by Assessing Officer which was discussed by a speaking order on 03.07.2018. The Assessing Officer passed assessment order by disallowing interest expense of Rs.6,49,951/- claimed by assessee under section ... authorities and submits that on the validity of re-opening the assessee raised objection. The objection of assessee was duly disposed of in a speaking order. In the order of disposing, the Assessing Officer 10 Murllimanohar R Mundhra specifically recorded that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Phool

Vaishya Samaj Dharmashala Pratishthan Alani Devachi, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1530/MUM/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2022-23 Vaishya Samaj Dharmashala Cit(Exemptions) Pratishthan Alandi Devachi 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill Vs. 403 Om Sai Darshan Chs Ltd. Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Plot No. 41 Sector 40 Seawood Dr Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Nerul Navi Mumbai- 400706 Cumballa Hill, Mumbai- 400026 Pan No. Aabtv5222E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kedar PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, DR

Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 13(1)(a)Section 13(1)(b)

appellant to make submissions where the learned CIT(E) seeks to draw an adverse inference, to consider such submissions and pass a speaking order. 7. On perusal of the order of ld CIT(E), we agree with the contention of the assessee and note that facts have not been properly ... view of above, we feel it appropriate to restore the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for deciding afresh and pass a speaking order after considering facts of the case in detail. The grounds of the appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purpose

Mr Ruder Mani Walia, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2 (3), Jalandhar

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

ITA 257/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.257/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 194DSection 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 250oSection 48

Rs.47,40,561/- is reflected in 26AS. The issue was agitated before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has passed speaking order which is reproduced as below: “6.) Decision: In the statement of facts it was argued as under: The facts of this case are that assessee

Macro Proprieties Private Limited, M 28 Income Tax Colony Tonk Road Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Lic Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 174/JPR/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri JameshKurian, CIT

Section 153CSection 50C(1)Section 69

jurisdiction to reassess the income of appellant under the provisions of section 153C of the Income Tax Act. The humble appellant submits that a speaking order ensure that the principles of natural justice are followed by the authority. To give reasons for the decision is a requirement of the principle

Shri Satnam Singh, Kapurthala vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax ( OSD) Central Circle -1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 155/ASR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Dr. Vedanshu Tripathi, CIT DR

remand the matter back to the ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana to adjudicate the matter on merits of the case by passing a speaking order. The self declaration filed by the appellant and the written notes reads as under: “The brief facts of the case are that during the course ... passing the order ex-parte qua the assessee on merits of the case. Further, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have passed a speaking order appreciating the merits of the case on the basis of the material evidence available on record. 5. The appellant assessee has mentioned in the declaration

Shri Satnam Singh, Kapurthala vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax ( OSD) Central Circle-, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 154/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Dr. Vedanshu Tripathi, CIT DR

Shri Satnam Singh, Kapurthala vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax ( OSD) Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 153/ASR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Dr. Vedanshu Tripathi, CIT DR

Andhra Pradesh Tanneries Limited, Vizianagaram vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 191/VIZ/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.191/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Andhra Pradesh Tanneries Ltd. Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Ida, Leather Complex Area Income Tax Nellimarla Circle-3(1) Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aabca4797L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Y.A.Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

opportunity may be provided to the assessee to furnish rejoinder to the remand report dt.04.01.2019 and decide the case on merits by passing a speaking order. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for stasistical purpose. Order Pronounced in open Court on 14th July, 2023. (दुव्वूरु आर

DCIT, Circle-2(2), Surat vs. The Surat District Co-Op. Bank Limited, Surat

In the result, ground No.6 raised by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(2), Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, Surat. J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-2(2), Vs. The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Surat. Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

covered in the main provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) has passed a very exhaustive and speaking order and we do not find any infirmity in the same. We have perused the aforesaid order of the Tribunal and finding ourselves ... main provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has passed a Assessment Year: 2013-14 very exhaustive and speaking order and we do not find any infirmity in the same. Therefore following the above Tribunal order, we do not see any infirmity

The Surat District Co-Op. Bank Ltd, Surat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Surat

In the result, ground No.6 raised by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 590/SRT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

Shri. Bhupendra Sitapchand Zaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO, It, Ward- 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is 10

ITA 2052/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Shri. Anil Sant

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 50C

proposed in the Draft Assessment Order, without appreciating the correct factual aspects of the matter. 2.2 The DRP has erred in not passing a speaking order in relation to the claim of the appellant for the expenses in connection with transfer and has cursorily dismissed the claim of the appellant