“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

Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1154/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

audit report and other documents now filed by the assessee. While doing so, the Assessing Officer shall decide the matter by way of a speaking order, in accordance with the law and after giving a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 10. Having held so, we may also mention

Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Setron Textile Mills Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4847/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143Section 147Section 148

detailed reasons were provided to the appellant. The appellant's objections were duly disposed of by the AO by passing a speaking order. Thus, the reassessment proceedings are in line with law and cannot be termed invalid. Therefore, ground no. 1 & 2 of the appeal are dismissed and not allowed

Professional Artist Cosmetics LLP, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -41, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3799/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

that these were short-term borrowings obtained at short notice to meet urgent business exigencies. After examining these submissions, the Assessing Officer passed a speaking order under section 143(3) on 02.12.2022, accepting the returned income. 4. The learned PCIT, however, issued a show cause notice on 21.03.2025, proposing revision

Lupin Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3257/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2019-20 Lupin Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Kalpataru Inspire, Income Tax-3, Off Western Express Highway, Vs. Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400055. Maharshi Karve Road, Pan : Aaacl1069K Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 43(6)

include an opportunity to present written submissions/arguments and to take into consideration the submissions so made and thereby examining the same and passing a speaking order accepting or rejecting the contentions so raised and determining as to how the order so passed by the AO is held to be erroneous

Spirit Global Constructions Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3821/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] M/S. Spirit Global Vs Acit, Constructions Pvt.Ltd., Central Circle-15, Plot No.1, Lsc, Site No.37- Delhi 38, Morland, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaics2757B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Amitosh Moitra, Ca & Roli Chaubey, Ca Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)- 26, New Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.10187/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Private Limited Company, Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 27.09.2012, Declaring Loss Of Inr 2,91,85,777/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) In Terms Of Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Wherein Income So Declared Was Accepted. Thereafter, Case Of The Assessee Was Re-Opened In Terms Of The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 31.03.2019 & Subsequently, Re-Assessment Order Was Passed On 24.12.2019 By Making Addition Of Inr 3.50 Crores Received From M/S. Anamika Steel Traders Pvt. Ltd. Of Inr 1.75 Crores & M/S. Gajraj Steel Merchants Pvt.Ltd. Of Inr 1.75 Crores Each By Holding The Same As Unexplained Credits.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

being inequitable and injudicious, as the same has been done without rejecting the objections of the assessee against such re-opening through a speaking order and by stating falsehoods in such order. x. The assessment is bad in law, being inequitable and injudicious, as the same has been concluded through ... speaking order. xi. The assessment is bad in law, being inequitable and injudicious, as the same has been passed by the LAO in haste, by Ignoring the request for time and by deliberately pre-dating his order and the CIT(A) has unjustly struck down this argument of the assessee

DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi vs. Silver City, New Delhi

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

ITA 1709/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahmandcit, Central Circle 7, Vs. Silver City, 28-12-2813, 1St Floor, New Delhi. Gali No.20, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110 005. (Pan :Acrfs7187F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate Shri Shashwat Bajpai, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 Date Of Order : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 21.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,04,40,760/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass. Notices Under Section 143(2) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Were Issued & Served Through Sped Post As Well As Through

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

reason to disturb the findings of the ld. CIT (A) who have dealt with the issue in detail and adjudicated with a speaking order. Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court

DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Aligarh vs. Bharat Varshney, Aligarh

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 102/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2022-23

Section 250Section 68

returned income. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who, after considering assessee’s submissions passed speaking order and deleted the aforesaid addition. 5. Revenue is in second appeal before this tribunal against the impugned order dated 16.12.2024 on the following grounds

Bhagya Kalita, Guwahati vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 257/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271A

further note that in Ajji Basha Vs. CIT (2019) 111 taxmann.com 348 (Madras) it has been held that a speaking order on merits with reasons and findings is to be passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on basis of ground raised in assessee's appeal; he cannot dispose the assessee's appeal ... merely by holding that the Assessing Officer's order is a self-speaking order which requires no interference. The relevant extract from the order is as under: 6. … The first respondent is the appellate authority. Needless to state that the Appellate Authority is also a fact finding authority and therefore

Bhagya Kalita, Guwahati vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 256/GTY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271A

Amreli Modh Vanik Community Property, Amreli vs. The Pr. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 360/RJT/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.360/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2024-25 Amreli Modh Vanik Principal Commissioner Of Community Property बनाम Income-Tax(Exemption), Nr. Rajkamal Chowk, Amreli- /Vs. Ahmedabad, 365 601 Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Ayakar Bhawan (Vejalpur), Nr. Sacin Tower 100 Ft Road, Anandnagar Prahladnagar Road, Ahmedabad-3800 015 "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं . / Pan/Gir No.: Aagta 8104 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

order and the ld CIT(E ) shall allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to make relevant submissions, and then pass a speaking order which is fair and judicious. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced

M/S. Parishram Builders, Veraval vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 98/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.98/Rjt/2021 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Parisharam Builders The Pr. Commissioner Of बनाम Krunal Complex, Income Tax, Rajkot-1, 1St Floor, Junagadh Road, Veraval Vs. Rajkot Gujarat-362266 Pan : Aacfp5403G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

distinction between adequate enquiries not having been conducted and the result of such enquiries not having been dealt with by way of a speaking order or not having resulted in the conclusion that could be, in the wisdom of a person other than the Assessing Officer, more appropriate. Here

Saroj Devi, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (4), Patna

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

ITA 242/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

further note that in Ajji Basha Vs. CIT (2019) 111 taxmann.com 348 (Madras) it has been held that a speaking order on merits with reasons and findings is to be passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on basis of ground raised in assessee's appeal; he cannot dispose the assessee's appeal ... merely by holding that Assessing Officer's order is a self-speaking order which requires no interference. The relevant extract from the order is as under: “6. … The first respondent is the appellate authority. Needless to state that the Appellate Authority is also a fact finding authority and therefore

Bajrang Wire Products (India) Private Limited vs. DCIT Circle -4-Jaipur, Rjn-C-(104)(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 901/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Athrav Mundra, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharma Singh Meena, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 250Section 3Section 80ASection 80J

Parshottamdas v. Commissioner of Income Tax, C.P. &U.P. [1941]9 I.T.R. 130 Your Honour the Ld. CIT Appeal without any adverse inference passed non speaking order which is bad in law and facts. Hence your honour is requested kindly to allow the appeal and grant deduction u/s. 80JJAA

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation, Jaipur vs. Bharat Kumar Manghnani, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 872/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69Section 69A

following written submissions in support of her case :- 5 Mr. Bharat Kumar Manghnani, Jaipur. “ The ld. CIT (A) has passed a well-reasoned and speaking order, which deserves to be upheld. The grounds raised by the Department are devoid of merit. Our point-wise submissions are as follows : Ground

Diamond Tradecom Private Ltd., Maharashtra vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 1389/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

further note that in Ajji Basha Vs. CIT (2019) 111 taxmann.com 348 (Madras) it has been held that a speaking order on merits with reasons and findings is to be passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on basis of ground raised in assessee's appeal; he cannot I.T.A. No.: 1389/KOL/2023 Assessment Year ... Diamond Tradecom Private Ltd. dispose assessee's appeal merely by holding that Assessing Officer's order is a self-speaking order which requires no interference. The relevant extract from the order is as under: “6. … The first respondent is the appellate authority. Needless to state that the Appellate Authority

Dezire Exports, Mumbai vs. ACIT-CC-5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3154/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Section 143(3)

grounds raised on merits, cannot be sustained. The first appellate authority is obliged to dispose of an appeal by way of a reasoned and speaking order, and in doing so, must ensure that the principles of natural justice are duly observed. 6. In these circumstances, and in the larger interest

Parvender Sharma, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 4369/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13 Parvender Sharma Vs. Ito , Ward 5(2)(4), Gautam Budh Nagar, New Delhi Noida Uttar Pradesh -201 307 (Pan: Dqhps5784P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh.Rohit Sharma, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2025 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.05.2025 Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. We Have Heard The Rival Contentions & Perused The Records. Before Me, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs. 30,98,000/- U/S. 69A Made By Treating Cash Depsoti In Bank Account As Unexplained. It Was Further Submitted That Cash Of Rs. 4,29,000/- Belong To Smt. Ishwari (Appellant’S Mother) & Cash Of Rs. 25,16,000/- Belongs To Smt. Premvati Related To Various Properties Sold By Original Owner Of The Property I.E. Smt. Premvati. Ld. Cit(A) Ignored The Submission Of Assessee That He Acted Merely As A Dealer / Broker In Property Transactions & Did Not Own The Funds Deposited In The Bank Account. It Was Also Submitted That Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Not Accepting

For Appellant: Sh.Rohit Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961. It is also noted that CIT(A) has not considered the aforesaid plea of the assessee and passed a non-speaking order and affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by holding as under:- “5.2 Vide ground number 7-8 of this appeal, the appellant

Ankur Chaudhary, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Noida

ITA 2139/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Shri Gagan RFor Respondent: Shri Amit jain, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132ASection 153Section 153D

noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of the same by a speaking order. The judgment is very clear that before proceeding with the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has to pass a speaking order. Therefore, the Assessing Officer ... Driveshafts (India) Ltd., has given a procedural safeguard to the assessee to avoid unnecessary harassment by directing the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order taking into account the objections for reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the I.T. Act. 17. The forming of opinion to proceed further

Ankur Chaudhary, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Noida

ITA 2120/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Shri Gagan RFor Respondent: Shri Amit jain, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132ASection 153Section 153D