A Raghuvir, C.J.— The instant reference is under the Income Tax Act. The assessee in the reference is a partnership firm M/s Gourishankar Khatuwal & Brothers of Haibargaon in the district of Nagaon. The reference relates to the assessment year 1978-79. The Income-tax Officer, A. Ward, Nagaon passed the assessment order on October 30, 1978. On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner modified the order on October 10,1979. On a further appeal to the Tribunal by the firm on June 14, 1982 the appellate order was confirmed except in some minor aspects. The subject of the instant reference does not relate to the A A C's order or that of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The Income-tax Commissioner found exercising power under section 263 of the I.T. Act that in the order of the Income-tax Officer on October 30, 1978 two items relating to interest were excluded from income. The exclusion of the two items prejudicially affected the interest of the revenue. He enumerated one of the items is Rs. 2.880/-. This amount was received by the assessee but it was excluded from income. As to the second item of interest said to have been paid to the relatives of the partners and sister concerns in contravention of section 40-A sub-clause (2) was excluded. As to how and what amount was excluded is not clear from the order of the ITO as this aspect is not even referred to in the order on October 30,1978. The CIT on August 7, 1980 held : "As regards interest paid to the relatives of partners and to sister concerns, it has been stated before me that the ITO has properly applied his mind on going through the books of accounts produced and he allowed the same. It has been stated that the ITO is the appropriate authority to decide whether the claim was excessive or unreasonable in the context of section 40 A (2). It has further been stated that interest at the same rate was paid and allowed even in the earlier year, and the ITO duly applied his mind to all the facts and therefore section 263 is not attracted. I am unable to accept this contention also. From the details filed before me it appears that interest the relatives of partners and sister concerns were paid at 24% as against 18% at which interest was payable to banks. I am unable to accept this contention also. From the details filed before me it appears that interest the relatives of partners and sister concerns were paid at 24% as against 18% at which interest was payable to banks. These facts prima facie provoked an enquiry for a proper decision after application of mind to the relevant facts in. the context of section 40 A (2) but no such enquiry was made and even no details were taken or considered as appears from record while computing the assessment. It has bee i stated that that assessee has also to pay godown rent to the bank in the case of secured loan but that question arises only where some stock is pledged and does not arise in the case of unsecured loan which was taken in the present case from the relatives and sister concerns. Total amount of interest paid to relatives of partners and sister concerns come to Rs. 78.130/-and the ITO had allowed the entire claim without any enquiry and without application of mind to the relevant fact and the provisions of section 40A (2) though the circumstance provoked' necessary enquiry as mentioned above. It is seen that in the order-sheet the ITO had recorded on 27.9.78 the fact that the case 'belongs to a group of cases in which detailed investigation is necessary' thereafter he issued notice U/s 143 (2) fixing the case on 21.10.78 on which date the hearing was taken and completed. Records do not show that any investigation whatsoever was made or any enquiry was undertaken. In view of these facts and circumstances and in view of the decisions in 79 1TR 386 (Delhi), 88 ITR 323 (SC), I hold that the assessment has been erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on this point also" (Para 4) Touching on the two aspects the CIT ordered the ITO to make a fresh assessment after enquiry. Aggrieved by the order the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the order. Aggrieved by the order the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the order. It is in these circumstances under clause (1) of section 256 of the Income Tax Act the following question was referred : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the fresh enquiry by the Income-tax Officer in pursuance of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax should not cover the two items of Rs. 2.830/- being the interest received in fixed deposit and the claim for interest paid to the relatives of the partners and to the sister concerns for the reason given by the Tribunal in its order in question." The assessee is not represented in this case, and after hearing the Standing Counsel for the Revenue we found orders-of the revenue authorities required a close scrutiny therefore we requested Shri J. P. Bhattacharjee to assist this Court. We are grateful for the assistance. He cited all the cases relevant to the question. The assessee contended before the Tribunal that the order of the ITO merged in the order of AAC and of the Tribunal therefore the CIT had no jurisdiction under section 263 to pass the directions for further enquiry. This question was considered by the State High Court in many cases and at least four times by the Supreme Court. To start with we take a case reported in 34 ITR 130: AIR 1958 SC 86 8 , CIT vs. M/s. Amrirlal Bhogilal & Co. where the limits of the merger were considered by the Supreme Court. That case was relied on in AIR 1967 SC 681 , State of Madras vs. Madural Mills Co. Ltd. where the extracts of the former case were cited. In the two cases the doctrine of merger it is held is not a doctrine of rigid and universal application. An order of inferior Tribunal on appeal ordinarily merges in superior Tribunal passed in an appeal or revision. But it cannot be said because of appeal order or revision order there is a fusion or merger of two orders. In Amritlal Bhogilal & Co.'s case, AIR 1958 SC 86 8 (Supra) the order was a composite order viz., an order granting registration of the firm and making an assessment on the basis of the registration. But it cannot be said because of appeal order or revision order there is a fusion or merger of two orders. In Amritlal Bhogilal & Co.'s case, AIR 1958 SC 86 8 (Supra) the order was a composite order viz., an order granting registration of the firm and making an assessment on the basis of the registration. It was observed referring to the facts in that case that the order of registration made by the Income-tax Officer did not merge in the appeal order. (The appeal was taken by the assessee to the Appellate Commissioner against the composite order of the Income-tax Officer). The High Court held the order of the Income-tax Officer granting registration merged in the appellate order. The revisional power of the Commissioner of Income-tax therefore cannot be exercised in respect of it. The view taken by the High Court was over turned as the order of the Income-tax Officer granting registration cannot be deemed to have merged in the order of the Appellate Commissioner. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohammad Noor, 1958 SCR 595 : AIR 1958 SC 86 principle of merger principle it was held cannot apply in the case of an order of dismissal of a public servant which was made by the departmental Tribunal on the 20th April, 1948 and against which the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 7th May, 1949, and the revisional application was rejected on April 22, 1959. There are two new cases where this principle was elucidated but the issue turned on cognate aspects which is check by jowl to the instant issue. The first case is 44 ITR 891, CIT vs. Shapoorji Mistry and the second is case of 66 ITR 443, CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria. The former case was confirmed in the latter case. The question in the two cases was whether AAC in enhancing the assessment can travel outside the return made by assessee to find out new sources of income, not disclosed in the return or discussed in the order of the ITO. In such a case the powers of AAC as to 'enhance the assessment' whether it is confined to the assessment "reached through a particular process but the amount which ought to have been computed if the true total income had been found." This view point was not accepted. In such a case the powers of AAC as to 'enhance the assessment' whether it is confined to the assessment "reached through a particular process but the amount which ought to have been computed if the true total income had been found." This view point was not accepted. As against this the contention of the assessee was accepted. The assessee contended the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commiss­ioner were confined to what was in the return or what was ordered by the ITO. The powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner thus no doubt included to enhance the assessment but the contention to restrict the power was accepted. In 98 ITR 255, Karsandas Bhagwandas Patel vs. G. V. Shah, ITO, Rajkot the same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court. In these cases mention is made of- the fact that another view (broader view) was possible but not favoured. In civil appeals what is termed as broader view is accepted. We will not explore the four corners of that view as the decision of the Supreme Court binds this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution. Two Full Bench cases-one is of Madhya Pradesh High Court in 140 ITR 3, CIT, M. P. vs- R. S. Banwarilal wherein the view of the Supreme Court is followed. There is also a Full Bench case of Karnataka High Court in 157 ITR 315, CIT, Karnataka-1 vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. in that the decisions of the Supreme Court were cited and followed. In the following three cases, 23 ITR 412, CIT Bombay North vs. Tetaji Farasram Kharawala; 167 ITR 671, CIT vs. P. Muncherji & Co and 105 ITR 344, J.R Synthetics Ltd. vs. Addl. CJT, U.P., on facts the High Courts held the order merged and the Commissioner's power under section 263 was not available. In the following six cases on facts it was held the Commissioner had power notwithstanding the orders in appeal. The cases are 172 ITR 733, CIT vs. Travancore Tea Estates Co Ltd.; 125 ITR 41, Puthuthotam Estates (1943) Ltd vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 122 ITR 430, CIT, Tamil-Nadu vs. City Palayacot Co.: Ill ITR 231, Singho Mica Mining Co. In the following six cases on facts it was held the Commissioner had power notwithstanding the orders in appeal. The cases are 172 ITR 733, CIT vs. Travancore Tea Estates Co Ltd.; 125 ITR 41, Puthuthotam Estates (1943) Ltd vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 122 ITR 430, CIT, Tamil-Nadu vs. City Palayacot Co.: Ill ITR 231, Singho Mica Mining Co. Ltd vs. CIT, Central, Calcutta; 170 ITR 41, Kunniram Ramgopal vs. CIT; 124 ITR 570, CIT, Bombay City-II vs. Sakseria Cottion Mills Ltd. For all the aforesaid reasons we answer the question in affirmatory in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. No costs.