“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

Rishabh Kumar Jain, Katni vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sagar

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

ITA 120/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 253(3)Section 69

sufficient time and opportunity to the assessee. The learned AR for the assessee further submitted that the learned CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on merits and dismissed the assessee’s appeal in a summary manner for violation of I.T.A. No.120/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2016-17 3 the provisions ... further submitted that the learned CIT(A) is duty bound u/s 250(6) of the IT Act to pass a speaking order on various grounds of appeal, on merits, but learned CIT(A) failed to do so. In view of the foregoing, learned AR for the assessee submitted, the impugned

Jila Sahakari Kendiya Bank Maryadit, Balaghat vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle Chhindwara, Chhindwara

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 137/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank V. Income Tax Officer Maryadit Chhindwara-480001. Near Kali Putli Chowk, Madhya Pradesh-481001. Tan/Pan:Aaaaj0474A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank V. Assessing Officer, Nfac, Maryadit Delhi Near Kali Putli Chowk, Madhya Income Tax Officer, Pradesh-481001. Circle Chhindwara-480001. Tan/Pan:Aaaaj0474A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 19 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)

opportunity of being heard for effectively representing his case. At the same time, the Ld. CIT(A) is under legal obligation to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case. Therefore, looking to the totality of the facts, we deem expedient to sub-serve the interest of principles ... aside the impugned order and restore the grounds to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide it afresh by way of speaking order, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Hence, the impugned order is hereby set aside and grounds of appeal are restored

Torsa Machines Limited, Guwahati vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Guwahati

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 97/GTY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Him.

Section 144B(7)(ii)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred on facts as well as in law in not passing a speaking order dealing with the grounds of appeal taken by the appellant as well as without considering the statement of facts submitted with the appeal, and in doing so violated the provisions

Than Khupa Hmar, Champhai vs. DDIT, ACIT Silchar, Silchar

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 112/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Where He Could Not Succeed Mainly On Account Of The Fact That The Notices Issued For Hearing In The Matter Did Not Elicit Any Response & Hence The Appeal Was Disposed Of In An Exparte Manner.

Section 148Section 148ASection 250

impugned order and remand the issue back to the file of Ld. AO for considering the submissions of the assessee and thereby passing a speaking order in the matter. The assessee would do well to present the facts and his objections, if any, before the Ld. AO and invariably cooperate

Dingluaia Hlawnmual, Dawrpui West vs. ITO-W 1 Silchar, DCIT/ACIT Circle Silchar, Silchar

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 111/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Where Also He Could Not Avail Of Several Opportunities To Represent Before The First Appellate Authority. Thereafter, For Both The Years, Exparte Orders Have Been Passed.

Section 250

impugned orders in both the appeals and remand these cases back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh consideration and thereafter passing speaking orders. The assessee would do well to cooperate with the Ld. AO and present his arguments regarding the assumption of jurisdiction as also on the facts

Dingluaia Hlawnmual, Dawrpui West vs. ITO W-1 Silchar, DCIT/ACIT Circle Silchar, Silchar

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 110/GTY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Where Also He Could Not Avail Of Several Opportunities To Represent Before The First Appellate Authority. Thereafter, For Both The Years, Exparte Orders Have Been Passed.

Section 250

Makhanlal Gattani, Jorhat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Jorhat

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 109/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: the date of processing u/s.143(1) by the CPC. The claim of deduction has been denied only on technical grounds and not on the merits of the claim.

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 234CSection 250Section 80Section 80I

without pointing out any distinguishable feature and when the said decisions also pertained to period of electronic uploading of forms. Such unreasoned and non-speaking order is bad in law. 5. For that the Id. JCIT(A) has erred in not allowing any opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee ... principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. For that the impugned appellate order is also bad in law being unreasoned and a non- speaking order. For that, alternatively, without prejudice to all the above grounds, the Id. JCIT(A) ought to have hold that the AO was not justified

Pawan Castings Meghalaya Private Limited, Meghalaya vs. DCIT/ACIT Cir-1, Guwahati, Guwahati Assam

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 106/GTY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). Thereafter, The Ld. Cit(A)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

arguments before the Ld. CIT(A) and I.T.A. No. 106/GTY/2025 Pawan Castings Meghalaya Private Limited thereafter the Ld. CIT(A) would pass a speaking order. We may add that in case, the assessee does not comply appropriately before the Ld. CIT(A) then the Ld. CIT(A) would

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-3(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 29/RJT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Dcit, Circle – 3(1), Vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd. Rajkot Aayakar Bhavan, Room Dhari Bagsara Road, Nr. Ice No. 114, 1St Floor, Race Course Factory, Amreli Ring Road, Rajkot Pan No.: Aajcs0177N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am; By Way Of This Appeal, The Revenue, Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 16.11.2017, Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Grievances Raised By The Revenue, Which Are Interconnected & Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 13,96,33,023/- Holding That Provision Of Section 195 Will Not Be Applicable. 2. On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred In Ignoring The Facts That The Assessee Has Failed To Prove The Genuineness Of Foreign Commission Expenses Before The A.O. 3. It Is, Therefore, Prayed That The Order Of The C.I.T. (A) May Be Set Aside & That Of The A.O. Be Restored To The Above Extent. Dcit Vs. M/S. Sonpal Export Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195

Counsel, also relied on the findings of the learned CIT(A) and stated that ld. CIT(A) has passed a detailed and speaking order, considering the factual aspect and considering the various judgements, on the facts, therefore, such detailed and speaking order passed ... disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, can be made. 17.We find that learned CIT(A) has passed a detailed and speaking order, narrating the facts and narrating the case law, applicable on facts. The assessee, DCIT vs. M/s. Sonpal Export Pvt. Ltd. filed written submission before

Mahant Pandey, Rohtas vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 182/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 272A(1)(d)

Assessing Officer has erred in passing the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 without disposing off objections raised by the appellant and without passing speaking order which is prerequisite as per the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India

Mahant Pandey, Rohtas vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 181/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 272A(1)(d)

Popular Motorworld Private Limited, Ernakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 2(5), Kochi

ITA 538/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neetu S, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

loss account and it was not a turnover at all. 4. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) went wrong in his conclusion not passing a speaking order on the objection raised against re-opening of the assessment was only a procedural irregularity. Your appellant had furnished the High Court judgment

Secunderabad Twin Area Round Table Charitable Trust, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 924/HYD/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

filed and after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, with liberty to file any additional evidence, if required, and to pass a speaking order. 5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(E) and submitted that the assessee ... documents already filed, permit the assessee to file any additional evidence if deemed necessary, grant adequate opportunity of being heard, and pass a speaking order in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and all issues

India Construction, Diamond Harbour vs. ITO, Ward - 25(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2592/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)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 I.T.A. No.: 2592/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 India Construction. 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

Laggisetty Manohar Karthik, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 15(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 746/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 746/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 147Section 54Section 80C

escapement of income in the hands of the individual. 23. We find that the AO had not disposed of such objection by passing a speaking order before framing the re-assessment. In fact the objections to the said re-opening of assessment were countered by the AO only ... India) Ltd., would tantamount to irregularity and in such cases, the re-assessment be restored back to the file of the AO to pass speaking order on the objections raised by the assessee. 27. However, we find that the decision rendered in the case of Home Finders Housing Ltd., (supra

Jinnagara Eraiah Lakshmidevi, Bengaluru vs. ITO Ward 5(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1384/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sri Suresh Muthukrishnan, CA

Section 250(6)

Lakshmidevi 7. As per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, it is incumbent upon the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order with respect to the grounds raised before him. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, we restore this matter

Manish Kumar Agrawal, Katni vs. Incometax Officer Ward-1, Katni

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

ITA 106/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253(3)Section 69A

sufficient time and opportunity to the assessee. The learned AR for the assessee further submitted that the learned CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on merits and dismissed the assessee’s appeal in a summary manner in violation of the provisions ... determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. In other words, the order of the learned CIT(A) must be a speaking order on merits of the case. The CIT(A) cannot dismiss appeal for non-compliance on the part of the appellant. The unambiguous provisions of section

Shiven Ceramic LLP, Morbi vs. ITO, National E Assessment, Delhi

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

ITA 392/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.392/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) M/S Shiven Ceramic Llp, बनाम Income Tax Officer National E-Assessment Centre, /Vs. 604/P5, 642/P1, Village Delhi Ghnutu, Lakhdhirpur Nr. Royal Touch Vitrified, Morbi-360 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adifs 8442 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Darshit Ranpara, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)

rationale of the provision is that such orders are ITA No.392/RJT/2025 A.Y.18-19 M/s Shiven Ceramic LLP subject to further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Speaking order would obviously enable a party to know precise points decided in his favour or against him. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case

Shree Sardar Patel Vishwavidhya Sansthan, Rajkot (Pedhla, Jetpur) vs. The ITO (Exemption) Ward-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 162/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 162/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Shree Sardar Patel Vishwavidhya Sansthan Income Tax Officer (Exemption), बनाम Ward-1, Rajkot, Aayakar /Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring C/O Cdhb & Company, Chartered Accounts, A-707, Rk Iconic, 150 Ft, Ring Road, Nr. Sheetal Park Bus Stand, Opp. The Spire Building, Rajkot - 360006 Road, Rajkot-360 001 स्थायी लेखासं./जी आइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaets0669R (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारितीकी ओरसे/Appellant By :Shri Maulik Kansara, A.R. राजस्वकी ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R. सुनवाईकीतारीख /Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20/08/2025 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) (In Short "Ld.Cit(A)",Dated 06.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 144 Of The Act Dated 28.11.2019.

For Appellant: Shri Maulik Kansara, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R

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 ... section 250(6) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has not examined assessment records and relevant documents and has not passed any speaking order. Considering the above facts, we note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party

Pinkesh Sureshbhai Patel, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3), Surat

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

ITA 44/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bisayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

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 re-opening