This is bunch of eleven matters which include five appeals of assessee, three cross-appeals of Revenue and three cross-objections of assessee relating to asst. yrs. 1994-95, 1996-97,1997-98,1998-99 and 1999- 2000 as has been clearly mentioned in title. Most of issues involved in cases are identical and arise from common facts; therefore, for sake of convenience and brevity, we proceed to decide them by common order. Briefly stated, relevant facts are that assessee is medical practitioner and is renowned child specialist. He was in Government service till October, 1991. After leaving Government service, he started his private medical practice and also runs nursing home in Sriganganagar. assessee filed his return of income for asst. yr. 1994-95 on 2nd April, 1996 by declaring income of Rs. 46,530. This return should have been filed by assessee on or before 31st Aug., 1994. Therefore, return was not accepted by AO. In this case of this assessee following tax evasion petitions were received: (a) TEP dt. 6th April, 1999 was forwarded by Jt. CIT vide letter No. 2228 dt. 2nd Nov., 1999; (b) TEP dt. 2nd June, 1997 was forwarded by Jt. CIT vide letter No. 1062 dt. 1st Aug., 1999; (c) TEP dt. 16th Oct., 1997 was forwarded by Jt. CIT vide letter No. 1026 dt. 4th Aug., 1999; (d) TEP dt. 6th April, 1999 was forwarded by Jt. CIT vide letter No. 2317 dt. 19th Jan., 2000. AO got enquiries conducted through Inspector and gathered information in relation to these tax evasion petition, and on basis of these enquiries and information so gathered, AO sought approval of Jt. CIT, Bikaner for initiating reassessment proceedings under s. 147 by issue of notice under s. 148. assessee had filed return of income on 12th June, 2000 declaring same income i.e., Rs. 46,530 as returned on 2nd April, 196. Likewise, assessments for asst. yrs. 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 were also reopened by issue of separate notices under s. 148 of Act after recording separate reasons. Before we proceed further it is necessary to narrate some more facts relating to these cases. assessee had got FIR registered against then ITO Shri A.S. Nehra, due to which relations between assessee and AO got strained. assessee requested for supply of reasons recorded for reassessment proceedings, but AO did not provide copy of reasons for all these years to assessee despite written request having been in this regard. But, undeniably, copies of reasons were not supplied to assessee. All his requests were turned down. One common ground taken in all appeals by assessee is that AO did not supply copies of reasons, which were recorded to initiate proceedings under s. 147/148 of Act. Since this issue goes to very root of matter, therefore, we decided to hear parties on this issue before entering on to other grounds. After hearing rival submissions, it is established on record that assessee demanded copies of reasons recorded for initiation of reassessment proceedings but same were not supplied to assessee, at all. Later on, during proceedings before learned CIT(A) such copies were given to assessee. This fact is very much evident from records and has been fairly conceded by learned Departmental Representative. copies of reasons, if it so desired, are required to be given to assessee as has been held in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO (2003) 179 CTR (SC) 11: (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). Hon ble Supreme Court has held that "when notice under s. 148 is issued, assessee must file return and later, if assessee so desired, may seek reasons for issuing notices. AO is bound to furnish reasons within reasonable time. It is necessary to note that only after filing return of income in response to notice issued under s. 148, assessee can ask for copies of reasons recorded for reopening assessment". Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Hanuman Sahai Choudhary vs. Union of India & Ors. (2004) 186 CTR (Raj) 715 has held that "unless assessee s objections are decided by speaking order, there is no question of passing final order in matter of assessment, therefore, AO shall first decide objections and thereafter pass assessment order." For all these assessment years, assessee made repeated requests for supply of reasons recorded for reopening of assessment, but same were not given and without providing copies of reasons, reassessment orders were passed. When this position was confronted to learned Departmental Representative, she fairly conceded fact of non-supply of reasons even after being demanded by assessee. She readily added that in these circumstances, all these appeals may be set aside to file of AO for passing appropriate assessment orders. Now, it is clearly established on record that AO did not supply copies of reasons recorded for reassessment in all these assessment years and proceeded with framing orders. Therefore, no question arose of deciding objections which could be raised by assessee against reasons before passing final orders. Hon ble apex Court in above decision has fairly laid down law with regard to supply of reasons when these are so desired by assessee. AO has utterly failed to supply copies of reasons despite various requests made in writing. Since AO is required to first dispose objections against reasons before proceeding to pass final order and that too, by passing speaking order, as to how and why objections are not acceptable, reassessments in all these cases are passed in utter violation of above law laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court as well as Hon ble jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, we set aside assessment orders framed under s. 147/143(3) of Act for all assessment years under consideration and send them back to file of learned AO with direction to frame assessment orders, de novo, after supplying copies of reasons to assessee and after seeking objections against same. AO shall also decide assessee s objections by passing speaking order and thereafter, if it so required, he may proceed to frame reassessment orders as per law. AO should not repeat same assessment orders and has to pass reasoned orders. Consequently, in view of our above findings there is no need to decide other grounds raised. Therefore, we accept appeals of assessee and set aside all assessment orders with above directions. appeals of Revenue as well as cross-objections of assessee become infructuous. After passing of fresh reassessment orders, if any, parties shall have regular rights of appeals as per law. In result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and appeals of Revenue and cross-objections of assessee are dismissed having become infructuous. *** Dr. S.R. Giri v. Income-tax Officer