← All Phrases

“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
89
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
68
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
58
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
56
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

Late. Sh. Gurmail Singh S/O. Sh. Lal Singh, Sri Mukatsar vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 59/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in passing a cryptic and non - speaking order. 3. That the statement and surrender made by the appellant during the course of survey was made under coercion, mistaken facts and provisions ... That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in passing a cryptic and non- speaking order. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the penalty

Late. Sh. Gurmail. Singh. S/O. Sh. Lal Singh, Sri Mukatsar vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 58/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in passing a cryptic and non - speaking order. 3. That the statement and surrender made by the appellant during the course of survey was made under coercion, mistaken facts and provisions ... That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in passing a cryptic and non- speaking order. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the penalty

Late. Sh. Gurmail Singh.S/O. Late Sh. Lal Singh, Sri Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 57/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in passing a cryptic and non - speaking order. 3. That the statement and surrender made by the appellant during the course of survey was made under coercion, mistaken facts and provisions ... That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in passing a cryptic and non- speaking order. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the penalty

Late. Sh. Gurmail. Singh S/O. Sh. Lal Singh, Shri Mukat Sar vs. Dy. Commissioner of 9Income Tax. Circle -II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 56/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in passing a cryptic and non - speaking order. 3. That the statement and surrender made by the appellant during the course of survey was made under coercion, mistaken facts and provisions ... That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in passing a cryptic and non- speaking order. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the penalty

Late. Sh. Gumail Singh . S/O. Sh. Lal Singh, Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 55/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in passing a cryptic and non - speaking order. 3. That the statement and surrender made by the appellant during the course of survey was made under coercion, mistaken facts and provisions ... That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in passing a cryptic and non- speaking order. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the penalty

Ghatkopar Sahajivan Co-Op Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Mumbai

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

ITA 825/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Sghatkopar Sahajivan Nfac Co-Op.Housing Society Mumbai-400020. बनाम/ Ltd., Sulsa House Plot Vs. No.26, Nath Pai Nagar, Gahtkopar East, Mumbai-400077. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacag6938Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Anil Gupta.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 23/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. "Cpc/Acit 27(1), Mumbai Has Erred While Making Adhoc Disallowance Of Rs.470220/-In Intimation U/S.143(1) & Also In Rectification U/S.154. 2 Ghatkopar Sahajivan Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta.DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

justice has been violated as the appellant was not provided with the show cause notice. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have passed speaking order on merits and sufficient opportunity of hearings/submissions ought to have been granted to the appellant.” 2. The Brief facts of the case are that

Shri Sudin Mahadev Sangodkar, Goa vs. Income Tax Officer, Daman Ward, Daman

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

ITA 207/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Sudin Mahadev Sangodkar, I.T.O., House No. 46B, 1/5 Next To Fab Ward-Daman Vs. India, Alta Mapusa, Bardez, Daman. North Goa, Goa-403507. Ph.9423530599 Email: Smsangodcar@Gmail.Com Pan No. Ajjps 0830 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 156Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

evidence if so desire. On filing such application, the ld. CIT(A) will consider the application/petition for condonation of delay sympathetically and to pass speaking order in accordance with law. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) shall decide the appeal of assessee on merit The assessee is further given liberty

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/S Worship Infraprojects Pvt Ltd(Previously Known As Om Metals Spml Infraprojects Pvt Ltd), Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 431/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Bhardwaj, CIT &
Section 92C

issue has not become final. In this regard we submit that mere admission of a special leave petition without passing speaking order could, by itself, cannot be construed as stay on operation of the decision of Hon'ble High Court nor cannot be construed as the verdict of Apex Court ... after considering the case laws and factual position in the present case, we are of the view that mere admission of SLP without passing speaking order could, by itself, cannot be construed as stay on operation of the decision of Hon’ble High Court nor the same be construed

Worship Infraprojects Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Ceircle-2, Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 394/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Bhardwaj, CIT &
Section 92C

issue has not become final. In this regard we submit that mere admission of a special leave petition without passing speaking order could, by itself, cannot be construed as stay on operation of the decision of Hon'ble High Court nor cannot be construed as the verdict of Apex Court ... after considering the case laws and factual position in the present case, we are of the view that mere admission of SLP without passing speaking order could, by itself, cannot be construed as stay on operation of the decision of Hon’ble High Court nor the same be construed

Sis Prosegur Holdings Pvt Ltd, Patna vs. Pr.CIT-1, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 47/PAT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.47/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sis Prosegur Holdings Pvt. Ltd...…………....….........…..........….…… Appellant Annapoorna Bhawan, Patliputra Telephone Exchange, Kurji, Patna, Bihar-800010 [Pan: Aaucs7524A] Vs. Pcit-1, Patna..................................…………........….....…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nageswar Rao, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 18, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 25.03.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ld. Pcit While Examining Assessment Records Found That The Assessee During The Year Had Issued 900000 Equity Shares Of Rs.10/- At A Premium Of Rs.90/- Per Share Totalling Rs.100/- Per Share. The Ld. Pcit Further Observed As Under: It Is To Be Noted That, During The Year Under Consideration, The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Viib) Were Applicable As Per Which If Aggregate Consideration For Issuance Of Shares Is More Than Fair Market

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

valuation report of the accountant, may call for an independent report from an expert to confront the assessee and thereafter to pass a speaking order in accordance with law. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Kolkata, the 18th May, 2023. ["गर"श अ"वाल /Girish

Sangeeta Devi Jhunjhunwala, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-70(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 747/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv SaxenaFor Respondent: Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 69C

very root of the transactions after doing deep analysis of the facts and circumstances. AO has independently applied his mind. AO has passed a speaking order and he has dealt with all the contention of appellant. There is no basis in the claim of appellant that since SEBI order dated

Arun Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 35(8), New Delhi

In the result the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1204/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: V. Rajkuamr, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D. R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reasons recorded for issuing of notice under section 148 of the Act on 20.08.2019 which was duly disposed off by passing a speaking order dated 22.10.2019 by the Assessing Officer. As regards transactions with M/s Astro Informatics, the assessee submitted purchases of Rs.32,40,000/- made and submitted the ledger ... response to which the assessee once again objected to the proceedings, which as per AO had already been disposed by passing a speaking order. Accordingly the assessing officer held the said purchase of Rs.48,49,500/- to be accommodation entry by a dummy shell company. Accordingly, passed the assessment order

Sumer Chand Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-50(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 9702/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

initiation of proceedings by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act and the Ld. AO met the objections by passing a speaking order on 05.11.2017 in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in GKN Drive Sharft (India

Sri Jamuna Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Patna vs. ITO Ward-2 (2), Patna

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

ITA 62/PAT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

Four) grounds of appeal as well as filed the statement of facts. However, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without passing a speaking order, which action of the ld. CIT(A) cannot be countenanced. 3. It should be kept in mind that if an assessee is aggrieved ... right to file an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). This valuable/statutory right of the assessee cannot be lightly brushed aside by passing non- speaking order. We expect the assessee to be diligent while pursuing the appeal. 4. Section 250 of the Act deals with procedure in appeal

Awdhesh Kumar, Patna vs. ITO Ward-4 (2), Patna

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

ITA 38/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

Twelve) grounds of appeal as well as filed the statement of facts. However, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without passing a speaking order, which action of the ld. CIT(A) cannot be countenanced. 4. It should be kept in mind that if an assessee is aggrieved ... right to file an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). This valuable/statutory right of the assessee cannot be lightly brushed aside by passing non- speaking order. We expect the assessee to be diligent while pursuing the appeal. 4.1. Section 250 of the Act deals with procedure in appeal

Shri Nirvair Singh, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 4 (3), Amritsar

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

ITA 719/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Year: 2011-12 4. That the Id AO and worthy CIT-Appeal erred on law and facts by not cross examining passing a Non speaking order and on Affidavits filed of assessee himself as well as both witness to the sale agreements which is contrary to Mehta Parekh ... forming same which in contravention to CBDT Instruction Number 20/2015 Dated 29/12/2015.The Worthy Cit-Appeals disposed of this ground by passing a non- speaking order by merely writing it is general in nature. 7. That the Ld Assessing officer and worthy CIT-Appeals had erred on law and facts that

Shri Murli Fatandas Sawlani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(3), Surat

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

ITA 215/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.215/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Hearing) Shri Murli Fatandas Sawlani, Vs. The Ito, Ward – 1(3)(3), C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate, Surat. 9Th Floor, Sopphire Ciomplex, C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad – 380009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adeps9862M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ketan Shah, Ar & Shri Aman K. Shah, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/04/2023 17/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

interest of justice, we 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, we deem

Qmax Synthetics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax, Cir 4(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 555/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

Form No. 35 cannot be considered in the absence of any supporting documentary evidence and submissions. The AO has passed a very reasoned and speaking order considering all the facts and the circumstances of the case and no interference with the order of the AO is called

Ravi Gopal Trivedy, Mumbai vs. National-Eassessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 358/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2014-2015

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

error and hence confirmed it. 2.7. The Ld. NFAC erred in confirming the order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre without passing the speaking order hence the addition confirmed by NFAC may be deleted.” 2. The assessee is an individual and filed the original return of income

ITO, Ward-1(1), Thane vs. Mohd.Umar Timber Mart, Thane

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 354/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.353 & 354/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ito, Ward-1(1). Mohd. Umar Timber Room No. 23, B-Wing, 6Th Mart. Floor, Ashar It Park, Near Golden Dyes Co. बिधम/ Wagle Industrial Estate, Highway Service Road, Vs. Thane- 400 604 Haridas Nagar, Thane(W)- 400 601

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

genuineness of purchase and also failed to prove to the assessment authority. The AO has not refuted the submission made by the appellant with speaking order but nevertheless proceeded to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Secondly, the addition has been made only on the basis of estimation