Tribunal allows appeals against assessment orders under s. 264/144, not revisional, citing CIT's direction.

The tribunal found that appeals against assessment orders passed under s. 264/144 were maintainable as they were fresh assessment orders framed as per CIT's direction, not revisional orders under s. 264. The tribunal emphasized previous case law, stating the CIT(A)'s decisions were not applicable. Consequently, the tribunal allowed both appeals for statistical purposes, directing the CIT(A) to decide on merits according to the law.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against orders passed under s. 264/144 - Maintainability

Analysis:
The appeals were directed against separate orders of the CIT(A) pertaining to asst. yr. 1994-95, where the lands of the appellants were acquired by the defense authority. The main issue was the non-maintainability of appeal against the assessment order passed under s. 264/144 of the Act. The AO assessed interest income received by the assessee between 9th April, 1991 to 4th Nov., 1992 on receipt basis due to lack of maintained books of account. The CIT set aside the assessment orders and directed the AO to reframe them. Subsequently, the AO passed orders under s. 264/144 on 24th Jan., 2001, against which the assessees filed appeals. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals, stating that no appeals against these assessment orders passed under s. 264/144 were maintainable. The main question before the tribunal was the maintainability of the appeals against the orders passed under s. 264/144.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in concluding that no appeal lies against the orders passed under s. 264/144. The assessees had filed appeals against the fresh assessment orders framed as per the direction of the CIT, not against the revisional orders passed under s. 264 of the Act. The tribunal noted that the assessment orders were framed afresh, making them appealable under the provisions of s. 246A(1)(a) of the Act. The tribunal cited the case law to support its decision, emphasizing that the decisions relied upon by the CIT(A) were not applicable to the current case. The tribunal concluded that the appeals against the assessment orders passed in compliance with the orders of the CIT under s. 264 of the Act were indeed appealable. Therefore, the tribunal allowed both appeals for statistical purposes and directed the CIT(A) to decide them on merits, as per law.

---