JUDGMENT
1. M/s Atul Traders, petitioner, in the above noted three writ petitions, is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of sale of Dhan Bhoosi and filed returns for the asst. yrs. 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1982-83 under the IT Act. Books of account maintained in normal course of business were also produced showing certain loan taken from one, J.P. Bajpayee (Karta of HUF) and also payment of interest accrued thereon. Assessment orders were passed by the concerned AO.
2. M/s Atul Traders, being aggrieved, challenged the above assessment orders by means of appeal No. CIT(A)/6/Etawah/1989-90 pertaining to the asst. yr. 1978-79 decided by the CIT(A) on 3rd March, 1992 (Annex. '5' to the Writ Petn. No. 812 of 1993). Against assessment order of year 1982-83, M/s Atul Industrial Corporation filed appeal No. CIT(A)/5/Ward-I/Etawah/1989-90 before CIT(A), Agra, which has been decided by means of the impugned order dt. 3rd March, 1991 (Annex. '5' to the Writ Petn. No. 820 of 1993). Another order of AO pertaining to the asst. yr. 1982-83 was .challenged by M/s Atul Industrial Corporation by filing appeal No. CIT(A)/5/Ward-I/Etawah/1989-90, which had been decided by means of the impugned order dt. 3rd March, 1992 (Annex. '5' to the Writ Petn. No. 811 of 1993).
3. CIT(A), Agra, in the aforesaid impugned orders noted that both 'M/s Atul Traders' and 'M/s Atul Industrial Corporation' were sister-concerns and there were cross-entries in their account books, including the entries referable to above mentioned J.P. Bajpayee (HUF), Etawah.
It is borne out from the perusal of the impugned orders dt. 3rd March, 1992 passed by CIT(A), that while assessing the material on record, appellate authority found cross-entries relating to M/s Atul Traders, M/s Atul Industrial Corporation (P) Ltd., Etawah and J.P. Bajpayee, HUF, which, in his opinion, attracted provisions of Section 150/251 of the IT Act (called "Act") and directed the AO to initiate proceedings for reassessment under Section 148 read with Section 149 of the Act.
4. In the appellate order relating to the asst. yr. 1978-79 challenged in Writ Petn. No. 812 of 1993, CIT(A) observed.... AO would be free to take appropriate action in the case of the appellant in 1977-78 .... However, in para 10 of the said impugned order the CIT(A) had while concluding its order observed :
...Reduction allowed... with directions for action under Section 150/251 as per this order as well as order of even date in asst. yr. 1982-83....
In para 31 of the impugned order dt. 3rd March, 1992 pertaining to asst. yr. 1982-83, CIT(A) had given categorical direction for taking action under Section 150/251 of the Act to the AO. While discussing the account books/entries, the CIT(A) observed : ...AO is directed to take action by resorting to Section 150.... Similar is the position with regard to the impugned order dt. 3rd March, 1992 pertaining to the asst. yr. 1979-80.
5. From the perusal of the impugned orders dt. 3rd March, 1992, in all the three writ petitions, it is evident that expression 'free', in the penultimate paragraph has been used only in the order pertaining to asst. yr. 1979-80, but in the concluding paragraph, the CIT(A) has given a direction in unequivocal terms requiring the AO to initiate proceedings for reassessment.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the observations made by the apex Court in the case of Rajinder Nath v. CIT , which reads :
...It is also not possible to say that the order of AAC contains a direction that the excess should be assessed in the hands of the co-owners. What is a 'direction' for the purposes of Section 153(3)(ii) of the Act has already been discussed. In any event, whatever else it may amount t