Allowing the petition the Court held that although there is no requirement for elaborate reasons, but a speaking order needs to really speak the mind of the officer exercising the quasi judicial function, this so being an empty formality even if he has a reason to believe that the income has escaped the assessment and, therefore, the objections are not to be accepted-It becomes the bounden duty to exercise this satisfaction in den and specific words so as to also convey to the party concerned that in exercise of discharge of his duty as a quasi judicial authority, he has arrived a conclusion, so far as objections are concerned. Court directed the AO to pass a speaking order taking into consideration the objections raised by the assessee. It is not the length of the order, which is the reason of remand, it is the cryptic manner of dealing without any semblance of reasons which necessitated such remand. Applied the ratio laid in Divya Jyoti Diamonds (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2021)  439 ITR 4371/ 128 taxmmann.com  419 (Gui) (HC)   Sabh infrastructure Ltd v. ACIT (2017) 398 ITR 198 (Delhi) (HC),  Shakuntala Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. 876 of 2021, dt. 7^th Sept., 2021 (SC). (AY. 2013-14)