“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

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Mangaldeep Chains, Bengaluru

ITA 2562/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CA

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 28Section 69ASection 69B

assessment order dated 09.09.2019 treating the additions as "unexplained Income u/s 69A" that too in a mechanical manner with a cryptic one-line/ non-speaking order as under: Quote "Submission made by you on 06.08.2019 and 16.08.2019 is considered. On a perusal of balance sheet and P&L account

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Mangaldeep Chains, Bengaluru

ITA 2561/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CA

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 28Section 69ASection 69B

Sunilkumar Subhash Balwada, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward, - 1, Palghar

ITA 902/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary(Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Sunilkumar Subhash Balwada Ito Ward 1 Flat No. 3/P Janakpuri Palghar Zenith Staff Co Boisat Vs. Boisar, Palghar Maharashtra-401 504. Pan : Amupb9065G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bhagirath RamawatFor Respondent: None

Section 153Section 44A

addition is made, it raises doubts about the intention and rationale behind the additions. Such an order can no longer be considered a "speaking order and provides room to surmises. Such an order cannot be held to be valid in the eyes of law. Additional Ground No. 2: Assessment order

Standard Chartered (India) Modeling and Analytics Centre Private Limited, East and West Wing vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 1(3)(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5526/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Hon’Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, C.A. (virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. D/R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

issue on merits rather than dismissing the same in limine on technical issues. We, therefore, direct the ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case after giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee on the merits and in accordance with

Standard Chartered (India) Modeling and Analytics Centre Private Limited, Bangalore Karnataka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Cirrcle 1(3)1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5525/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Hon’Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, C.A. (virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. D/R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

Mukesh Kishindas Bathija, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 16(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4935/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR

Section 250Section 50C

access to the road. The assessee's objections citing legal and physical constraints were ignored by both the AO and DVO without any speaking orders. ii. M/S Ganesh Benzoplast Limited. vs. Income Tax Offcier, ITAT, 6351/Mum/2017 wherein the co-ordinate bench held as under: In respect of the addition under

R S Construction, Mumbai vs. Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4918/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

cogent evidence. No material has been brought on record to demonstrate that the amount represents unaccounted income of the appellant. 9. Mechanical and Non-Speaking Orders The orders of both the AO and the CIT(A) are non-speaking and lack independent reasoning. The CIT(A) merely affirmed the findings

Ador Welding Limited (Successor of Ador Fontech Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4307/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ador Welding Limited (Successor Of Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ador Fontech Limited) Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai. Ador House, 6 K Dubash Marg, Fort, Vs. Mumbai – 400001. Pan/Gir No. Aaaca9076B (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR DR)

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 37Section 37(1)Section 54E

conscious of the fact that the ld. CIT(A) is duty bound to deal with the evidence filed by the assessee by way of speaking order which has to specify as to why the same is not acceptable. In the present case in hand, we do not find any such

Shashwat Foundation Trust, Mumbai vs. I.T.O Exem Ward 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3553/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Shashwat Foundation Trust I.T.O. Exemption 253/C, Kelichi Chawl, Ward 2(3), Mumbai G. K. Marg, Lower Parel, Vs. Mumbai – 400013. (Pan: Aalts8825J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Shyamsunder Agrawal, Ca Revenue : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074468829(1), Dated 13.03.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru, U/S. 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.08.2023 For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground No. 1 In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned C.I.T. (Appeal) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal & Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal Without Appreciating The Fact That: The Appellant Is A Charitable Trust

For Appellant: Shri Shyamsunder Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, SR. DR

Section 12ASection 143Section 154Section 249(3)

file of ld. CIT(A) for meritorious adjudication of the grounds raised by the assessee at the first appellate stage by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make all the relevant submissions as required to substantiate the claim made

Tirupati Realbuild Private Limited, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5406/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Kinshuk Gautam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 148B

assessee. Against the same, the assessee appealed before the Ld.CIT(A) who simply upheld the action of the AO by passing a non-speaking order. 3. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. Upon careful consideration, I note that Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the action ... passing a non-speaking order and AO in his assessment order has observed that since assessee has no substantive documentary evidence to furnish in support of that it was not working as conduit for 2 | P a g e circulating the funds between Dev Wines Group concerned and made

Tirupati Realbuild Private Limited, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5405/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Kinshuk Gautam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 148B

Income Tax Officer, City Centre, Gwalior vs. Ajay Singh, Gwalior

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

ITA 405/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Yadav, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 142Section 148Section 69A

assessee after verifying all the facts and evidences. Accordingly, do not disturb the findings of the ld. CIT (A) who has passed a speaking order. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced

Ekkadam Seva Sansthan, Sriganganagar vs. The CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

ITA 868/JODH/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT DR

Section 12A

assessee may file. The assessee shall extend full cooperation and furnish all requisite documents. The Ld. CIT(E) shall pass a reasoned and speaking order after affording due opportunity to the assessee. 10. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter remanded to the file

Shyam Lal Suthar, Jodhpur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 791/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

writing. The AO shall afford adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, follow due process, and then decide the issue afresh by a speaking order in accordance with law. Needless to add, no coercive penalty proceedings shall continue till such verification is completed. 7.5 We make it clear that

ACIT, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur vs. M/S. Adarsh Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Sirohi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, as indicated above

ITA 212/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana, Advocate and Shri Mukesh Soni, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 33Section 35Section 40Section 56Section 5ASection 67(1)Section 73

objection raised by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner (Appeals) must record specific findings with cogent reasons on each such issue and render a speaking order. Mere reliance on an earlier characterization of the assessee’s “status”, or on the conclusions reached in preceding assessment years, cannot absolve the Commissioner (Appeals ... adequate opportunity of being heard, permit filing of any additional evidence, if warranted, in terms of Rule 46A, and shall pass a well-reasoned, speaking order dealing point-by-point with the AO’s objections and the assessee’s replies. 12.4 We make it clear that we have not expressed

ACIT, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur vs. M/S. Adarsh Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Sirohi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, as indicated above

ITA 211/JODH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana, Advocate and Shri Mukesh Soni, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 33Section 35Section 40Section 56Section 5ASection 67(1)Section 73

Smt. Satyawati Marwaha Through Legal Heir Sh, Chander Sheikhar Marwaha, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

ITA 347/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

However, the fact remains that all the documentary evidences are in favour of assessee and learned CIT(A) has passed a very reasoned and speaking order and we do not find any infirmity in the same." 28 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 The findings recorded

Smt. Satyawati Marwaha Through Legal Heir Sh. Chander Sheikhar Marwaha, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

ITA 346/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

Sangam Eanta Udyog, Pratapgarh vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed for statistical purposes

ITA 131/ALLD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

fair having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, and applicable law. The learned CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned and speaking order. No material has been brought for our consideration to persuade us to take a view different from the view taken by learned CIT(A). Therefore

Apex Irrigation, Rajkot vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 94/RJT/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 40Section 5Section 68

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