“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

Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2178/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. In the instant case, as the reasons have been disclosed in these proceedings, the Assessing Officer has to dispose of the objections, if filed ... passing a speaking order, before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the abovesaid five assessment years.” 3.2. Similar issue has been laid down by the Hon'ble Madrass High Court in case of Karti P. Chidambaram vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai [2018] 402 ITR 488 (Madras

Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2007/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

thereby partly allowing the appeal of the assessee. In our opinion, the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) is a very reasoned and speaking order while estimating the income on the unaccounted receipts which are stated to be received from cash sales effected outside the books of accounts

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Ashok Kumar Kayan, Kolkata

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

ITA 1757/KOL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata……...…………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Ashok Kumar Kayan……………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 1, R N Mukherjee Road, Dalhousie, Kol-1.. [Pan: Alkpk2298K] Appearances By: Pradeep Dung Dung, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 23.07.2024 Of The Cit(A)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 04 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

prayed that one fresh opportunity of hearing may be given before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer may be directed to pass a speaking order after considering the documentary evidences filed by the assessee as AO passed order when there was no compliance by the assessee ... fact that CIT (A) has also passed a non-speaking order. 7. After hearing the submissions of the counsels of the respective parties and particularly on perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, we find that the order passed

Sushil Mitruka, Darjeeling vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1631/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

Sushil Mitruka, Darjeeling vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Siliguri

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

ITA 1630/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. In the instant case, as the reasons have been disclosed in these proceedings, the Assessing Officer has to dispose of the objections, if filed ... passing a speaking order, before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the abovesaid five assessment years.” 3. 2. Similar issue has been laid down by the Hon'ble Madrass High Court in case of Karti P. Chidambaram vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai [2018] 402 ITR 488 (Madras

DCIT, Circle-1, Siliguri vs. Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1613/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1499/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarawal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1498/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1497/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and

ITA 1496/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

thereby partly allowing the appeal of the assessee. In our opinion, the order passed by the Id. CIT (A) is a very reasoned and speaking order while estimating the income on the unaccounted receipts which are stated to be received from cash sales effected outside the books of accounts

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1440/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

Cpt Elecy System Employees Coop T&C Society, Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kancheepuram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

ITA 3058/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3058/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 V. Cpt Elecy System Employees Ito, Coop T & C Society Che-W-(141) (91) No 30 S M Dass Avenue, Chennai, Iyappa Nagar, Tamil Nadu Kancheepuram-631501 [Pan: Aacac8508J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand ... inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed. (v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order

Swamedas Panithasan, Chennai vs. ITO, Non-Corporate Ward 17(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

ITA 3056/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3056/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Swamedas Panithasan Ito, No 14/82 New No 20 Anna Salai, Non-Corporate Ward-17(2), Periyar Nagar A, T. Nagar Chennai. Chennai Alwarthiru Nagar, Alwarthirunagar, Chennai-600087 Tamil Nadu [Pan: Axjpp4321R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1126/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., CIT

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

revised value is correct. In such view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue that there is no speaking order and that order of the assessing officer was cryptic is not acceptable one. Though the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has got power under Section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. Cosmopolis Educational Trust, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 575/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudhan UA, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT

Section 11

taken behind the AO’s back causing prejudice. Here, the ld. CIT(A) exercised co-terminus powers, examined the materials, and passed a speaking order. No prejudice is shown. Therefore, we reject the procedural ground. 24. Coming to merits of the assessee, the assessee runs schools. The expenditure

Arpit Minerals (P) Ltd, New Dewlhi vs. ITO Ward -3(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 7486/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7486/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2009-10) Arpit Minerals (P) Ltd., M-544, 3Rd Floor, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi 110087 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadca-8341-C बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent New Delhi अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Keshav Kishor Anand, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 18/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 05.10.2025, For Assessment Year 2009-10 2. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Legal Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Form No. 35, Challenging Validity Of The Notice Issued U/S.148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Have Not Been Adjudicated By The Cit(A). The Cit(A) Restored The Matter To The Assessing Officer (Ao) For Fresh Examination On Merits. He Further Submitted That The Notice Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act (Placed At Page No. 24 Of The Paper Book) Bears An Incorrect Pan. It Was Contended That The Said Notice, As Well As The 2 Subsequent Notices Issued Under Section 142(1) Of The Act Were Never Served On The Assessee, Therefore, The Assessee Could Not Participate In The Assessment Proceedings. The Ao, In Ex Parte Proceedings, Made Addition Of Rs. 30,60,000/- Holding That The Assessee Had Obtained Accommodation Entries. The Assessee In Appeal Before The Cit(A) Has Challenged Validity Of The Assessment Proceedings On The Ground Of A Defective Notice Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act, As Well As On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Keshav Kishor Anand, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 148

merits of the case. Accordingly, the appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication of the aforesaid legal issues by passing a speaking order, after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Karjala Seva Sahkari Mandli Limited, Amreli vs. The ITO Ward-3(1)(4), Rajkot-Amreli, Rajkot

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

ITA 423/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250

r.w.s.144 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the Id. CIT(A), is an ex- parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. Considering the above facts, We note that assessee

Mungra Ashokbhai, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(10), Jamnagar.

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

ITA 282/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Ms. Rutvika, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

carried out u/s 144 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. We note that

Indira Bai Jindal, Khargone vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC

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

ITA 134/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: None (Written request)For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering such explanations and evidences as may be produced. The Assessing Officer shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law after due verification. Indira Bai Jindal vs. ITO A.Y. 2013-14 9. However, we also take serious note

Vasant Sudam Bhase, Dehu Gao Pune vs. Assessmeng Unit, Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 2558/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2558/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2023-24 Vasant Sudam Bhase, At & Post Dehu Gai Dehu Road, Tal-Haveli, Dist-Pune Pune-412109 Maharashtra Pan-Audpb7683F Appellant Vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Pune Respondent Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Kishor B Phadke : Shri Harshit Bari, Addl. Cit (Through Virtual) : 17.12.2025 : 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit Appeal (Nfac), Delhi U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 31.10.2025 Which Is Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S.144 R.W.S 142(1) Of The Act Dated 21.02.2025. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1 The Learned Cit (Appeals) Income Tax Department Erred In Law & On Facts That Appellant Failed To Submit Supporting Submission In Support Of Grounds Of Appeal As While Submitting The Appeal Before Cit Submitted All The Information & Documents 2. The Learned Cit (Appeals)) Income Tax Department Erred That Appellant Sub Leasing Rental Property -Open Land To The Companies Namely "Mahindra & Mahindra "Is A Business Income & Not Income From Other Sources. 3. The Learned Cit (Appeals)) Income Tax Department Erred That Appellant That Declaration Of Subletting Income On Presumptive Basis Treating Them As Business Income & View Of Assessing Officer Confirmed In The Order 2

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

filed by the assessee for which a reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be given. Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. Assessee is also directed to ensure that its correct and latest email address and Mobile No. are updated