“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

Sunil Kumar Garg, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 36(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3182/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 41Section 41(1)

hands of the appellant were further unconstitutional as against the law and to the facts of the case, because of not passing the speaking order on the merits of this case, as he has only relied upon the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 7. That no proper and reasonable

Navjeevan Charitable Society, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 215/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 154Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

detailed show- cause was issued to the assessee on 12.02.2021 and in response to which, the assessee submitted his reply on 16.02.2021 and a speaking order was passed by the AO removing the objections on 24.02.2021. Hence, the contentions of the appellant do not stand ground here as well

V Guard Industries Limited, Vennala vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 63/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainv-Guard Industries Ltd. Principal Cit-1, 42/962, Vennala High School C R Building, I S Press Road, Vs. Road, Vennala, Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682028 [Pan: Aaacv5492Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prashant V.K., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 28/12/2018 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (‘Pr. Cit’ For Short) Vide Order U/S. 263 Dated 22/03/2021. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 08/03/2022, Though Delayed By 256 Days, Was Admitted In View Of The Blanket Condonation By The Apex Court In Suo Motu Wp(C) No.3/2020, Dated 10/01/2022, Excluding The Period From 15/3/2020 To 28/02/2022 In Reckoning The Delay In Computing Limitation Under Law & The Hearing Accordingly Proceeded With. The Assessee Is A Company Manufacturing Electrical Cables, Pumps, Solar Water Heaters, Etc. & Trading In Electrical & Electronic Goods. Revision Of It’S Impugned Assessment Is On Several Issues On Which The Revisionary Authority Found An Absence Or Lack Of Enquiry By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

applicable to the proceedings under the Act. The AO shall decide on merits in accordance with law, issuing definite findings of fact, per a speaking order after hearing the assessee. We decide accordingly. 4.11 Issue # 7: Non-verification of huge claims for expenditure ‘Assessee has claimed huge expenses against 'salaries

Shri Aijaz Rahi S/O Shri Mohd Ismail Wani, Banglore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -3 (1), Srinagar

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

ITA 237/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Prashant Singh, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251

aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order on merits. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.03.2023 (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member

Shri Abdul Hamid Malik, Anantnag vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Srinagar

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

ITA 236/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Prashant Singh, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251

Diya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 7(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated herein above

ITA 1929/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Diya Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, 1373, Rani Bagh, Shakur Ward-7(3), Basti, Delhi-110034. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccd3991L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. & Ms. Mansi Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjay Nargas, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2023

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

issuance of notice u/s 143 (2) was not necessary. 3. The Ld. AO erred in law and on facts in not passing a separate speaking order rejecting the objections filed by the assessee to initiation of proceedings u/s 147 before proceeding to pass assessment order

Santosh Yadav, Alwar vs. ITO, WD.1, Alwar

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

ITA 5/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 5/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 Smt. Santosh Yadav Ward-2, Jilani Mata Ke Pass, Behror, Distt. Alwar cuke Vs. The ITO Ward-1 (1), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABSPY 9983 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Vikas Yadav jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR alquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ D

For Appellant: Shri Vikas YadavFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR a

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 274

documentary evidence 3 ITA NO. 5/JP/2023 SMT. SANTOSH YADAV VS ITO, WARD 1, ALWAR and submission. 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 is called for. All the grounds of appeal

Bajrang Lal Agrawal, Surajpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur

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

ITA 260/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 260/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Bajrang Lal Agrawal Aman Cold Storage, Bhaiyathan Road, Surajpur C.G-497 229 Pan : Adypa3583F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

persuade myself to subscribe to the manner in which the CIT(Appeals) had disposed off the appeal, i.e., by way of a non- speaking order. As is discernible from the order of the CIT(A), it transpires that he had merely endorsed the observations of the A.O without giving ... have deliberated upon the issues which were raised by the assessee appellant before him and dispose off the appeal by way of a speaking order. As the Ld. CIT(Appeals) had merely endorsed the observations of the A.O, therefore, in my considered view he had failed to discharge the statutory

M/S Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 274/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur14 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.274/JPR/2021 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2014-15 M/s Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 3, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ 0763 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 15/02/2

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 263

before us:- 24 M/S Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. The ld. DR in addition the above decision submitted that the ld. PCIT has passed speaking order considering the contentions of the assessee and the ld. AR of the assessee in his alternative submission accept that the assessee is liable

Shri Nizarali Bahadurbhai Hajiyani, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Morbi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 300/RJT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

fact in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed by the A.O amounting to Rs. 29,767/-on following grounds:- (a) Passing non speaking order as to how the case law relied upon by him is applicable to the present appeal, (b) Passing no comments as to how case laws

Shri Nizarali Bahadurbhai Hajiyani, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Morbi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 299/RJT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Shri Nizarali Bahadurbhai Hajiyani, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Morbi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 298/RJT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Ekta Adnani, Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1) Intl Taxation, New Delhi., Delhi

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

ITA 902/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sahil Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

deem it fit to remand the matter to the file of the ld CIT(A), who shall consider the additional evidences and pass a speaking order in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Geometra International (Private) Limited, Singapore vs. ITO, Int. Tax-1(3)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1305/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Kirti Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 148

that time we hold that the delay be condoned 2 Geometra International Pvt Ltd and direct the ld CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on merits after duly observing the principles of natural justice. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is filed by the assessee. Order

Gurmukh Das Gangwani, Bhatapara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 246/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 246/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Gurmukh Das Gangwani House No.199, Gurunanak Ward, Bhatapara (C.G.)-493 118 Pan : Ainpg1689A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250(6)

order shall give out the reasons for such decisions. The underline rationale of the position is that such order is further appealed. 7. Speaking order obviously will enable any party to know positively the points decided in his favor or against. Absence of formulation of the point of decision

Malanadu Milk Producers Society, Kottayam vs. DCIT, Exemption, Tvm, Thiruvananthapuram

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 633/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Jose Kappan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 263

view of the utter failure to make any inquiry by the assessing officer while passing a briefs cryptic and non-speaking order the assessment order is held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The assessing officer has passed a stereo-typed order which simply accepts what

Malanadu Farmers Society, Kottayam vs. DCIT Exemptions, Tvm, Thiruvananthapuram

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 632/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Jose Kappan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 263

Asha Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Jaipur

ITA 22/JPR/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

erred in law and on facts in upholding the additions made by the AO, by not passing a speaking order on any of the grounds of appeal filed before him. 4. The ld. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging of interest ... books of accounts because her income is from agriculture and not from any business activity. 6. That the impugned order is not a speaking order and as such it is liable to be cancelled. ITA NO. 1345/JP/2019 : 1. Under the facts & circumstance of the case, the order passed

Shri Suresh Kumar Chawla, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward -6(3), Jaipur

ITA 8/JPR/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

Shri Bhagwati Prasad Sharma, Dausa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Dausa

ITA 27/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250