Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is Abdul Kareem Haji. For the assessment year 1970-71, the Income-tax Officer made an assessment on Poyakkaraveettil Hamsa consequent upon seizure of Rs. 84,000/- by the Enforcement Directorate during a raid conducted at his premises. The amount seized was claimed by the petitioner as his As a result of this claim, an alternative or protective assessment was made upon the petitioner, Abdul Kareem Hajee, in respect of the amounts seized. The respective orders of assessment relating to Hamsa and the petitioner are Exts. P2 and P2A both dated 1-12-1973. These two orders were set aside in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by Ext. P3A dated 31-1-1975. On appeal taken by the Department against that order, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by Ext. P4 dated 31-7-1977 affirmed the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner relating to Hamsa. By Ext. P4A dated 31-1-1977 the Tribunal, however, allowed the Department's appeal in respect of the petitioner and affirmed the assessment order (Ext. P2A). As a result of Exts. P2A and P4A, the petitioner alone was found liable for the income-tax due in respect of the amount seized. 2. The question which now arises in the present proceeding is as regards the interest demanded from the petitioner by the Income-tax Officer as "seen in Ext. P6 which reads: The interest chargeable u/s. 220(2) for the assessment year 1970-71 on Rs. 60,278/- works out to Rs. 24,682/-. This is charged. This should be paid as per Demand Notice." Ext P6 was affirmed in revision by the Commissioner of Income-tax by Ext. P7 dated 4-3-1978. 3. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel, Shri Paripoornan, that insofar as Ext. P2A was set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by Ext MA, no interest had become payable by the petitioner on the tax demanded and his liability arose only upon the final order of the Appellate Tribunal. In other words, counsel contends that for the period commencing on 31-1-1975 which is the date of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and ending on 31-7-1977 which is the date of the order of the Tribunal, no interest had accrued on the amount in question. 4. The order of a judicial or quasi-judicial authority is not final for the purpose of res judicata during the time allowed for filing an appeal or the pendency of an appeal. 4. The order of a judicial or quasi-judicial authority is not final for the purpose of res judicata during the time allowed for filing an appeal or the pendency of an appeal. In the absence of any statutory provision to the contrary, or an interim stay granted by a competent Authority, the order, although not final, is provisionally executable, subject to restoration. The finality of Ext. P2A was qualified by and subject to the appeal which was taken before the Appellate Authority. The order of the Appellate Authority itself was likewise provisional during the period allowed for filing an appeal or during the pendency of the appeal. When the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner concerning the petitioner was finally set aside by the Tribunal, thereby affirming Ext. P2A order of the Income-tax Officer, the cloud overhanging Ext. P2A was removed and its finality was affirmed Consequently, for the relevant period, Ext. P2A is deemed to have operated in full vigour to make the petitioner liable in law by reason of the Tribunal's affirmative order. If this is the position in law, which I think it is, S.220(2) of the Income-tax Act was attracted in respect of the amount due from the petitioner as per Ext. P2A dated 1-12-1973. It is that interest which is now demanded by the Income-tax Officer vide Ext P6, and affirmed by the Commissioner by Ext. P7. The challenge against the impugned orders accordingly fails. The O. P. is dismissed. No costs.