“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

M/S. Friends Salt Works & Alied Industries, Gandhidham-Kutch vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year

ITA 49/RJT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Thacker, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 250

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) ought to have pass a speaking order and ought to have follow the CBDT Circular, binding precedent of hon'ble Apex Court and of ITAT, Ahmedabad which is fully applicable to the issue under consideration

Crest Paper Mills Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. - 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, additional ground no

ITA 3044/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhvk-Vk-La- 3044@Eaqcbz@2016 ¼Fu-Oa- 2010&11½ M/S. Crest Paper Mills Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Tarun Plastic Compound, Morga Village, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400 066 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaacc4343D Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 8 (1), Aayakar Bhavan ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, Advocate izfroknh }kjk@For Respondent: Shri V. S. Mahajan, Sr. AR

Section 41(1)

issue, we deem it fit to restore additional ground raised by the assessee to AO to decide the same by passing a speaking order. 7. The assessee is at liberty to make submissions before the AO in respect of additional ground of appeal. The AO after considering the relevant documents

Mahek Shah L/H Pramod Keshrichand Shah, Daman & Diu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Daman, Daman

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

ITA 174/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.173 & 174/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-10 & 2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Mahek Shah, Vs. Income Tax Officer, L/H. Of Pramod Keshrichand Shah, Ward Daman, Hotel Diwanji Jain Street, Nani Daman, Building, Devkanand, Daman. Daman & Diu – 396210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeups4588R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)

interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of NFAC/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

Mahek Shah L/H Pramod Keshrichand Shah, Daman & Diu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Daman, Daman

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

ITA 173/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)

ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Surat vs. M/S. Hi-Choice Processors P. Ltd, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 98/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Srt/2020 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Income Tax Officer, M/S. Hi-Choice Processors Pvt. Ward-1(1)(3), Room No.113, Vs. Ltd., 264, Gidc, Sachin, Surat- Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 394230. 395002 (""थ" /Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach7062E िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 31/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 18/04/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 68

therefore the same ratio is applicable to the current assessment year. The ld Counsel stated that ld CIT(A) has passed a reasoned and speaking order therefore, the same should be upheld. 15. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We note that during ... regard to all the above items of expenses. Considering this factual position, we note that ld CIT(A) has passed a reasoned and speaking order. That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of Id. CIT(A) in deleting the aforesaid additions. His order on this addition

Joginder Pal Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 16(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 2876/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 251

details. The assessee vide letter dated 16/10/2017 requested the Ld. AO to dispose of the objection raised for the reasons recorded by way of speaking order and also requested to provide the copies of statement or details relied upon by the Ld. AO, which would establish the escapement of income ... assessee vide letter dated 30/10/2017 stated that the objections filed by the assessee were not disposed of by passing a separate speaking order by the Ld. AO. The assessee also furnished the ledger account of IMSPL as appearing in the books of accounts of the assessee to drive home

Navneet Dutta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 67(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2299/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Kakar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Verma, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 24

with considering the merits and documentary evidence of Income from House Property, thereby refusing rectification U/s154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without any speaking orders. 3. The Ld. AO and Ld. CIT (A) both failed to ascertain the correct Income from House Property and only restricting the loss

Shri Raj Kumar ( M/S Radhika Sales Corp ), Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 3 (3), Amritsar

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

ITA 195/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250oSection 68

order of CIT(A) NFAC is against the principles of natural justice. 4. That the CIT(A) NFAC has erred in passing a non-speaking order which is against the law even if the assessee was not represented before it. 5. That the CIT(A) NFAC has erred in confirming

Aijal Handicrafts Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 312/JPR/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Prakash Meena, Addl.CIT

Section 36(1)(va)

WARD 1(1), JAIPUR Rs.1,09,779/- the ground is allowed for statistical purpose. The AO is directed to give effect by passing a speaking order. 5.9.5. Before parting, the issue of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs Rajasthan Beverages Corporation Ltd. and various High

Sureshbhai Sukhabhai Mistry, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward 5, Navasari

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

ITA 263/SRT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.263/Srt/2022 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Sureshbhai Sukhabhai Mistry Income Tax Officer, 130, Kumbhar Faliya, Via Ward-5, Navsari Vs Satem, Tal: Navsari, Dist. Navsari-396466 Pan No: Ammpm 4411 H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sujesh C Suratwala, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 30.01.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 31.03.2023 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 “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 05.05.2022 For Assessment Year 2011-12, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 13.09.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- Suresshbhai S Mistry “1. The Learned Ao As Well As Learned Nfac/Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Addition To The Total Income Of The Assessee Which Is Primarily Agriculture Inn Nature & In Fact Exempted To Tax

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

ground of assessee is also restored back to the file of Assessing Officer for considering the evidence furnished by assessee and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to file all the required documents as desired by the assessing officer. The assessee

Sh. Gurjinder Singh, Amritsar vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Amritsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT DR

Section 194CSection 263

observing as under. “2. On perusal of assessment order it is observed that "the Assessing Officer has passed a very cryptic and non-speaking order without application of mind. The AO has failed to make inquiries/verification which should have been made before passing the order, thus, making the order erroneous

The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax-Central Circle-2, Raipur, Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S Devi Iron & Power Pvt Ltd., Raipur, Raipur (Cg)

ITA 101/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 267 & 268/Rpr/2014 Co Nos. 30 & 31/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Devi Iron & Power Pvt. Ltd. Mahamaya Tower, 3Rd & 4Th Floor, In Front Of Anupam Nagar, Near Varun Honda, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaeca3704G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.101/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Devi Iron & Power Pvt. Ltd. B-08-09, Sector-C, Industrial Area, Urla, Sarora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcd9753D ……""यथ" / Respondent Co Nos.30 & 31/Rpr/2015

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

infirmity in the explanation of the Assessee. 21.4 The CIT(A), in our mind, has analysed the factual matrix threadbare and passed a very speaking order. Without repeating all the observations of the CIT(A), we find ourselves in complete agreement with the conclusion drawn

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. Devi Iron & Power Pvt Limited, Raipur

ITA 268/BIL/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. Devi Iron & Power Limited, Raipur

ITA 267/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Mahesh Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT - 6, Jaipur

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

ITA 4/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sunder Goyal, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 134ASection 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

further directed to consider the appeal filed by the assessee on merits SHRI MAHESH AGARWAL VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR by passing a speaking order. Resultantly, we allow the appeal filed by the assessee. 7. In the net result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.” In view ... Practitioners vs ITO (supra), assessee is directed to file the appeal electronically before the ld. CIT(A) who will pass the afresh speaking order on merit. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Sh. Laxman Singh Chahar, .R. Compounder Ki Gali, Devipura, Sikar vs. ITO, Ward-4, Sikar

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

ITA 434/JPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: It, Hon’Ble Itat Is Prayed To Decide The Appeal On Merit Instead Of Setting Aside The Matter To Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal , CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 250(6)

view, the ld. CIT(A) was under an obligation to decide the grounds appeal raised by the assessee by passing a well reasoned and speaking order which has not been done by the ld. CIT(A) in the present case. Even otherwise the dictum of Section ... looked at the end of the ld. CIT(A) and ld.CIT(A) is under an obligation to pass a well reasoned speaking order taking into consideration the grounds raised by the assessee before him. Thus, we restore the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with the direction

Sona Power Private Limited, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-2, Raipur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 15/RPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaairet Aria &. / Ita No.15/Rpr/2020 Fauhur_ At / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: S/sshri Salil Kapoor, Tarun ChananaFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

initiating proceedings in its case under Sec. 147 of the Act, which were disposed off by the A.O vide a speaking order dated 23.08.2018 (as culled out in the body of the assessment order). 5. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the A.O that

Mithila Drugs Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

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

ITA 566/JODH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradmithila Drugs Pvt.Ltd., Vs Acit, F-70, Road No.2, Circle-1, 102A, Mewar Industrial Area, Aaykar Bhawan, Sub Madri, Udaipur-313003. City Centre, Savina, Udaipur-313001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaccm6767B Assessee By None (W/S) Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/03/2023 Date Of 23/03/2023 Pronouncement

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

M/S. Abhilasha Marmo Grani Pvt. Ltd., Rajsamand vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rajsamand

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

ITA 530/JODH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradm/S. Abhilasha Marmo Ito, Grani Pvt.Ltd., Tasol Road, Ward-1. Pasoond, Distt.-Rajsamand. Rajsamand, Rajasthan-313333 Distt.Rajsamand. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadca5286G Assessee By Shri Rakesh Lodha, Ca Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/03/2023 Date Of 23/03/2023 Pronouncement

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

appearance an ex-party order was passed without determining issues raised during the course of assessment before the assessing officer like non passing of speaking order by the assessing officer on the primary objection raised by the appellant against the invoking provisions of section 148 of the Act, not allowing

ITO Ward-7(1), New Delhi vs. Developer Group India Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 9248/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A), Assessee Made Elaborate Submissions. Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

given any specific reason to disallow the expenses on adhoc basis. The AO has not appreciated the complete facts and has not passed a speaking order. No defect in the books of account has been brought on record and it has not been stated that the expenses are not genuine ... submitted that ld. CIT (A) has appreciated the matter in right perspective and he submitted that AO has passed a laconic and non-speaking order. He relied upon the order of ld. CIT (A). 8. Upon careful consideration, we find ourselves in agreement with the ld. CIT (A) that