“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

Raj Veer Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 964/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A K Arora, Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

therefore restore the issue back to the file of A.O. and direct him to consider the submissions of the assessee and thereafter pass a speaking order on the issue and decide the issue in accordance with law. Assessee is also directed to co-operate by filing promptly the required details

Shri Dipten Ahindra Bhowmick, Gandhidham-Kutch vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhidham-Kutch

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

ITA 134/RJT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 264Section 264(1)Section 40A(3)

action has condoned the delay but he has recorded just one line in his order that the delay is not condoned without any speaking order. 4.1 We also note that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of S.R. Koshti Vs. CIT reported

Raju Kashyap, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-42(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 905/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40ASection 40A(3)

Delhi, is not justified in confirming the levy of interest U/s 234B & 234C which is without passing the speaking order. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, delete or amen' grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of appeal. 2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal

Madresa Himayatul Islam Bachchon Ka Ghar, Bardoli vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 279/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat02 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Madresa Himayatul Islam Bachchon Ka I.T.O. Ghar, Exemption Ward, Vs. Ground Floor Bachchon Ka Ghar, Surat. Kadod, Bardoli-394335. Pan No. Aadtm 1802 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 12ASection 133(6)Section 144Section 249Section 249(4)Section 254(1)Section 69A

circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without passing speaking order. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in making addition

Pramod Kasliwal, Jaipur vs. ITO WD. 6(2), Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed statistically

ITA 388/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ld. Cit/Nfac.

For Appellant: Sh. Pramod Patni (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 49(1)Section 54

assessee on merits. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC should have decide the issue on merits which has not been decided by passing a speaking order in the quantum appeal filed by the assessee. Considering the present set of facts as argued by both the parties in both appeal we feel

Pramod Kasliwal, Jaipur vs. ITO WD. 6(2), New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur 302005

Appeals of the assessee are allowed statistically

ITA 387/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ld. Cit/Nfac.

For Appellant: Sh. Pramod Patni (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 49(1)Section 54

DCIT Central Circle -2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Zarco Realities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1751/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit Central Circle-2(3), M/S Zarco Realties Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, 1403, Godvari, Sir Prathishtha Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Pochkanwala Road, Worli, Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400025. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacp 6265 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Satyapal Kumar, Dr : Date Of Hearing 20/12/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Vijay Mehta, AR

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

speaking objections filed by the assessee were also disposed off by a speaking objections filed by the assessee were also disposed off by a speaking order dated 15.02.2016. Thereafter, statutory notice u/s. 143(2) order dated 15.02.2016. Thereafter, statutory notice u/s. 143(2) order dated 15.02.2016. Thereafter, statutory notice

Mehul Krishnkant Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT 29(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1654/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemehul Krishnakant Vs. Acit, Circle – 29(2) Mehta Room No. 202, C-10, Shop No. 24, Sharmila 2Nd Floor Bkc, Apartments, Model Bandra (E), Town, Mulund (W), Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400080. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpm6130D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Ravi Swarna.Ar Respondent By : Shri. Suresh Periasamy.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Ravi Swarna.ARFor Respondent: Shri. Suresh Periasamy.DR

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68

documentary evidences. We considering the overall facts and circumstances find the order passed by the the CIT(A) order is cryptic and non speaking order. Accordingly in the interest of justice, we restore the disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) for afresh adjudication on merits and shall

Novatech Projects (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals)-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed b

ITA 1817/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Novatech Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd., Addl. Cit, Range-3, 601, Plot No. A/278, Road. No. A/16 Thane-400 604. Vs. Balaji Infotech, Estate, Thane (W), 400604. Pan No. Aaacn 5828 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Viraj Mehta : Revenue By Mr. Chetan M. Kacha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Viraj Mehta

Section 68

evidences produced by the assessee, and er evidences produced by the assessee, and er evidences produced by the assessee, and thereafter pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law, after thereafter pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law, after thereafter pass a fresh speaking order in accordance

Vipinlumar Sanklecha, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 16 (3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6612/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6612/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Vipinkumar Sanklecha बिधम/ Ito, Ward-16(3)(5) Room No. 447, 4Th Floor, A/303, Bhattad Tower, Opp. Vs. Kora Kendra Ground, R. M. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Bhattad Road, Borivali (W), Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400092. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aayps5062N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ajay Singh Revenue By: Shri Mahender Ahuja सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-07, Mumbai Dated 02.08.2019 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To Ground Nos. 1 & 2 Which Are The Legal Issues Raised By The Assessee Against The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Assessment Without Satisfying The Condition Precedents As Laid Down U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) As Well As For Not Following The Hon’Ble Supreme Court As Well The Hon’Ble Bombay High Court Decision Cited By Him. The Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3.1 Reads As Under: - “1. The Id. Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Reopening Of Assessment Without Appreciating That The Reopening Of The Assessment Is Bad In Law, Invalid & Liable To Be Quashed In As Much As:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Shri Mahender Ahuja

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 68

Assessing Officer has proceeded to complete the assessment without considering the objections to the issuance of notice u/s.148 of I.T. with a reasoned and speaking order, in gross violation of the procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India ... paper book) e. The Ld AO without considering the Objections to issuance of notice u/s.148 of I.T. with a reasoned and speaking order, in gross violation of the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India

ACIT -3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hikal Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2010

ITA 2320/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-3(1)(2), Hikal Ltd., Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, 717/718, Maker Chambers V, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaach 0383 A Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Cit-Dr/ Mr. R.N. D’Souza, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Ar : Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Revenue by Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao

Section 14A

without finding fault with the workings of the assessee workings of the assessee and without passing a speaking and without passing a speaking order, directly proceeded to allocate the head office expenses order, directly proceeded to allocate the head office expenses order, directly proceeded to allocate the head office expenses

Itek Packz, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 995/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

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 to be read into it as the Assessing Officer CPC, while disposing of the objections raised by the assessee is performing a quasi judicial

Mass Fab Technologies, Bangalore vs. CIT(Appeals), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1079/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

Jayesh Bhanji Shah, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(1)(1), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2320/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vasant K. KangeFor Respondent: Shri Mahender Ahuja

appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) is duty bound to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee and pass a speaking order on the grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal. In this case according to the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee has not discharged the burden