Ranjan Gogoi, J.

1. All these appeals being directed against common orders founded on identical grounds, were taken up for consideration together and are being disposed of by the present common judgment and order.

2. The assessments of the respondent-assessees in each of the appeals were completed by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Suo motu proceedings under Section 263 of the Act were initiated by the Commissioner of Income Tax in respect of the aforesaid assessments. While the proceedings were pending the assessees had filed appeals against the assessment orders passed by the primary authority. By different orders the Commissioner of Income Tax interfered with each of the assessment orders in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act. Thereafter, the appeals filed by the assessees were closed as infructuous by separate orders passed. Aggrieved, the respondents-assessees instituted Appeals Nos. 2, 3, 9 and 10 (Gau) of 2004 against the orders passed under Section 263 of the Act as well as Appeals Nos. 68 and 69 (Gau) of 2004 against some of the orders disposing of the appeals against the assessment orders as infructuous. In so far as the present appeals are concerned, the court would have to deal with three separate but identical orders, each dated September 15, 2005, passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench allowing the appeals filed by the respondents-assessees before the learned Tribunal.

3. A reading of the impugned orders dated September 15, 2005 indicates that the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that as the Assessing Officer, one Sri Dibyendu Kumar Deb, was promoted as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax on November 7, 2001, the original assessment orders passed by him were so passed when the incumbent was holding the post of Income Tax Officer, As under Section 158BG of the Act, assessment in block cases is to be finalised by an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, the learned Tribunal held each of the initial orders of assessment to be null and void. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessees were allowed by the learned Tribunal. Aggrieved, the Revenue is before this Court.

4. We have heard Sri U. Bhuyan, learned standing counsel, the Income Tax Department appearing on behalf of the appellants and Sri D. Senapati and Sri V. K. Bhatra, learned Counsel for the respondents-assessees.

5. Sri Bhuyan, learned Counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of the court to the fact that by the order dated July 8, 1999, by which the Assessing Officer Sri Dibyendu Kumar Deb was transferred from Shillong to Silchar, he was also allowed to hold the charge of the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Investigation Circle, Silchar in addition to his own duties. Sri Bhuyan has, therefore, urged that on the date when the assessment orders were passed the Assessing Officer was holding charge of the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and, therefore, was competent to finalise the assessments in question. Sri Bhuyan has further submitted that the aforesaid fact, in spite of being on record, was overlooked and/or ignored by the learned Tribunal. Placing reliance on a judgment of the apex court in the case of Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M. L Wadhawan, Additional Secretary, Government of India reported in [1987] 3 SCC 367 : [1988] 64 Comp Cas 228, Sri Bhuyan has submitted that the Assessing Officer having been allowed to hold the charge of the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax was competent to exercise the powers vested in the said office and, therefore, the assessment orders passed by the said officer are in conformity with the requirements of Section 158BG of the Act. In this regard, reliance has been placed by Sri Bhuyan on the observation of the apex court in paragraph 21 of the judgment in Pushpadevi M. Jatia [1987] 3