AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM:
These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31, Delhi pertaining to A.Yrs. 2011-12 to 2016-17. Since these appeals are related to the same assessee, hence, appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that both the lower authorities have passed the exparte orders. It was further submitted that assessee did not file any objection before the lower authorities. During the course of hearing, a copy of order dated 18.12.2025 u/s. 6(3) of Right to Information Act, 2005 has been filed by the assessee and submitted that no satisfaction was recorded by the AO, so the assessment is bad in law.
Ld. DR submitted that assessee did not file any objection before the AO, even then before the Ld. CIT(A), as a result thereof exparte orders have been passed by both the lower authorities. She also submitted that because the assessee is non-cooperative, hence, he cannot raise the issue that the assessment was framed without recording the reasons of reopening.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant records. It is an admitted fact that both the lower authorities have passed the exparte orders, but the assesse did not cooperate with the lower authorities. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid factual matrix and in the interest of justice, the matter is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to provide the relevant documents to the assessee on which revenue rely and assessee is directed to cooperate with the AO during the proceedings and if the Assessee is failed to cooperate with the AO, then the AO is free to pass the order, in accordance with law.
In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.