“ speaking order ”

Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala

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.

245 ITR 360 · 2000 · Supreme Court

361

M/s Sahara India (Farms) v. CIT & Anr.

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.

300 ITR 403 · 2008 · Supreme Court

268

Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT

Administrative orders must be consistent with the rules of natural justice.

131 ITR 451 · 1981 · Supreme Court

143

Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

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.

382 ITR 333 · 2016 · High Court

Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala

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.

119 STC 505 · Reported

PCIT v. Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd.

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.

236 Taxmann 494 · 2016 · High Court

Home Finders Housing Ltd. v. ITO

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.

404 ITR 611 · 2018 · High Court

ITA 82/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2001-02

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

General Electric Company, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2001-02 is allowed and the appeal of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri M Balaganeshm/S. General Electric Company, C/O Kpmg, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011 Pan Aaacg5399M …Appellant. Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax, (International Taxation)-3(1), Room No.136, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N M Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. ….Respondent. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3(1), Mumbai-400 038 ….Appellant. Vs. M/S. General Electric Company, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. ….Respondent. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Shri Abhishek Tilak & Shri Ameya Pany. Revenue By : Ms. Surabi Sharma, Cit D.R. Shri Sunil Umap, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabi Sharma, CIT

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 5Section 9

filed before us. The objections filed by the assessee were not admittedly disposed of by the learned Assessing Officer by way of a separate speaking order. The gist of various objections raised by the assessee challenging the validity of reopening vide letter dt.26.12.2008 are as under :- a) The learned Assessing ... dropped. 5. The learned Assessing Officer without disposing of the objections raised by the assessee for the reasons recorded by way of a separate speaking order, proceeded to frame the reassessment directly under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 31.12.2008 determining the total income of the assessee

DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai vs. General Electric Company, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2001-02 is allowed and the appeal of revenue for A

ITA 432/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2001-02

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabi Sharma, CIT

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 5Section 9

Shri. Jaywant Shyam Rathod, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi

ITA 2438/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Raman Shah, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69Section 69A

Hence addition made u/s 69A is not proper and hence not applicable in assessee case. d. Further, the learned CIT (A) passed the Non-speaking order i.e. without considering the submission made by us at the time appeal proceeding.” 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the issues

Meher Ghansham Lalwani, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 2144/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Bhargavi RavalFor Respondent: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 68

file and direct him to give proper opportunity to the assessee before deciding the appeal and the Ld CIT(A) to pass a speaking order in accordance to law 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this

Salim Ibrahimbai Jaka, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Cnetral Circle-3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5147/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Salim Ibrahimbhai Jaka, Dy. Cit Central Circle- 2Nd Floor, Malhotra House, 3(3), Office No. 1 Opp. Gpo Fort, Vs. Room No. 1923, 19Th Mumbai-400 001. Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Abppj 5700 N Appellant Respondent : Assessee By None : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 01/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by None

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

said addition and has assessment order while making the said addition and has erred in passing a non erred in passing a non-speaking order. An order must be a speaking order. An order must be a speaking order that means speaking order that means an order must speaks ... reasoned order. It is a well decided judicial principle that udicial principle that every order passed by an AO must be a speaking order. With every order passed by an AO must be a speaking order. With every order passed by an AO must be a speaking order. With regards

Visa Sales Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.O. Ward 1(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 526/KOL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.526/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Visa Sales Pvt. Ltd........….……………………....................……….……Appellant 12, Waterloo Street, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Aadcv1161H] Vs. A.O, Ward-1(3), Kolkata……..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Narayan Gupta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 09, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 21, 2022 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-19, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06.03.2018 Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 29.03.2014 Passed By Ito, Ward-1(3), Kolkata. 2. The Registry Has Informed That This Appeal Is Time Barred By 968 Days. On Going Through The Condonation Application In The Form Of Affidavit & After Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That This Delay Is Accountable For Two Reasons. Firstly, The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) Is Dated 06.03.2018 & The Assessee Has Not Received The Order On Time. Secondly, The Period Of Delay Occurred On Account Of Lockdown In The State Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19. In View Of The Reasons Stated In The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay & Also The Extension Of Limitation Period By Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 Of 2020 Dated 10.01.2022 By Which The Period From 15.03.2020 To 28.02.2022 Has Been Directed To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Limitation & A Further Period Of 90 Days Has Been Granted For Providing The Limitation From 01.03.2022, We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing This Appeal & Admit The Same For Adjudication.

Section 143(3)Section 68

Visa Sales Pvt. Ltd I.T.A. No.526/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 afresh adjudication and to pass a speaking order after considering the submissions and evidences to be filed by the assessee on being provided sufficient opportunity of being heard. We further direct the assessee to remain compliant and not to take

M/S Kotalipara Development Society, Barasat vs. I.T.O.(Exemption), Ward-1(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 164/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.164/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Kotalipara Development Society....................................................…… …. Appellant Pioneer Para, Noapara, P.O. Barasat, North 24 Parganas, W.B. 700124. [Pan:Aaaak3272B] Vs. Ito(Exemption), Ward-1(4), Kolkata........................................................….. Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 21, 2022 आदेश / Order

Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

being fair to both the parties, remit the issue raised on merits to the ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication and to pass a speaking order after considering the submissions and evidences to be filed by the assessee on being provided sufficient opportunity of being heard. We, also, direct

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 292/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

international transaction entered into by the Appellant with its AEs. 13. The learned DRP has erred in not passing a speaking order in relation to the Appellant's contention against adjustment for interest on loan advanced to AE. 14. The learned DRP/AO/TPO has erred in not considering loan advanced

Late Shri K.Kandasamy Rep by L/H Smt. K.Amirtham, Trichy vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Trichy

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

ITA 1522/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1522/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Late Shri K. Kandasamy, The Income Tax Officer, Rep. By L/H Smt. K. Amirtham, Vs. Ward – 1(2), No.52, Dindigul Main Road, Trichy. Karumandapam, Trichy – 620 001. Pan : Awgpk 0750R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Trichy In Ita No.260/2014-15/Cit(A)-1/Try Dated 24.04.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-I(2), Tiruchirappalli For The Assessment Year 2007-08, U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 26.03.2015. 2. The Only Issue Remains For Adjudication Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao In Computing Long Term Capital Gain On Sale Of Land Situated At Kuniamuthur, Coimbatore Admeasuring 6.75½ Acres For A Consideration Of Rs.45 Lakhs As Per Sale Deed But Addition Confirmed Based On Sworn Statement Of The Assessee Admitting The Sale Consideration At Rs.2,63,99,250/-.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

facts available on record. When a query was put to ld. Senior DR, whether the CIT(A) has discussed the issues and passed speaking order, he could not controvert the above fact situation. Further, he could not controvert that the order of CIT(A) is ex-parte. 6. After hearing ... wherein only unexplained investment to the extent of Rs.42,27,780/- was considered. Even the CIT(A) has passed cryptic and non-speaking order and that also ex-parte qua assessee without elaborating on merits of the case, whether the assessee has received total consideration of Rs.2

Anil Kumar Jaiswal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-44(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 565/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250

raised by ld. D/R, restore all the issues in the instant appeal to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and to pass a speaking order after considering the submissions as well as the relevant documents to be filed by the assessee on being provided adequate opportunity and to decide

K H & Associates, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Mumbai

ITA 2241/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Shah &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194Section 44A

Also some aspects were not ventured at all. A fair hearing has to be there in substance and not merely in form. Such Non-speaking orders are in essence nothing but violation of principles of natural justice. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete

Rooprekha Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 300/KOL/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT, D/R

Section 250Section 68

sent back to the A.0. giving direction for conducting fresh enquiries and necessary verifications before passing a speaking order by the A.O. in pursuance of I.T.A. No. 300/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Rooprekha Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. 5 his direction, the case was re-fixed for hearing by issuing questionnaire along

Samriddhi Petroproducts Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 580/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2014-15 Samriddhi Petroproducts Vs. Dy. C.I.T Private Limited Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aarcs2499F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Mohd Afzal Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi Relating To A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Wholesale & Retail Trade Of Auto Gas. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2014 Declaring Nil Income After Setting Off Of Brought Forward Losses Of Rs.28,54,332/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) On 12.09.2016 Determining The Total Income At Rs.2,16,571/-. Subsequently, The Learned Cit Assumed

For Appellant: Advocate Mohd AfzalFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

passed the order ex-parte without giving any reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Further, CIT(A)-NFAC has not passed a speaking order while dismissing the appeal of the assessee. He accordingly submitted that in the Page 3 of 6 ITA 580 of 2022 Samriddhi Petropfoducts ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-appearance and he has not decided the issue on merit by passing a speaking order as required u/s 250(6) of the I.T. Act. As per provisions of section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, the order

Nsk Builders, Trichy vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 47/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

ITA 46/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

assessee is hereby dismissed.” 7. Similar are the findings in other years. We noted that the order of CIT(A) is totally non-speaking order and ex-parte. Owing by the circumstances in the family of the Director’s of the assessee company, we are allowing one more opportunity

Nsk Builders, Trichy vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

ITA 45/CHNY/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Nsk Builders, Trichy vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

ITA 1415/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

ACIT Circle 3(1), Trichy vs. N.S.K.Builders, Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal