Judgment :- R. Jayasimha Babu, J. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not competent to entertain the enhancement petition made by the Department?" The assessment year is 1981-82. 2. A draft assessment was made in respect of the assessee's income for this year in which the assessing Officer proposed the disallowance of the claim of the assessee for deduction of loss on sale of investment amounting to Rs.14,27,500/-. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, to whom the draft assessment had been forwarded as required by Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, gave a direction to the assessing Officer under Section 144B(4) of the Act to allow the deduction as a short term capital loss. The assessment was, thereafter, made on 13.8.1984 allowing the deduction. 3. The assessee appealed against the assessment in respect of other matters. During the pendency of that appeal, the Commissioner received a letter from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, in which, it was pointed out that in view of the further facts having come to light with regard to the claim for deduction of loss on the sale of investment, the assessment made was required to be enhanced. Thereafter, the Commissioner gave notice to the assessee, considered the assessee's objections and held that a fresh examination of the entire matter was required, as prima facie, the assessment required enhancement, and therefore, he set aside the order of assessment and remitted the matter back to the assessing Officer. 4. The Tribunal, to whom the assessee appealed, set aside the Commissioner's order on the ground that Section 144B(5) of the Act imposes limitation on the power of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to enhance the assessment. 5. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the power of the Appellate Authority under Section 251 (1)(a) of the Act is very wide, that the power include the power to enhance, and that the appellate power is not restricted in cases where the order of assessment has been made in accordance with the directions issued by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 144B(4) of the Act. Counsel for the assessee supported the order of the Tribunal and submitted that the Appellate Authority can only do what the original Authority could do, and as the hands of the Assessing Officer were tied by reason of the directions given under Section 144B(4) read with 144B(5) of the Act, the Commissioner was equally bound by the direction and, therefore, did not have jurisdiction to interfere with that order by way of enhancement, or to set aside the order on the ground that the case for enhancement was required to be considered. 6. Section 251 of the Income-tax Act deals with the powers of the Appellate Commissioner. Section 251(1)(a) of the Act sets out the scope of the appellate power. That clause as it then stood read thus: "251(1)-- In disposing of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the following powers-- (a) in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment; or he may set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Income-tax Officer for making a fresh assessment in accordance with the directions given by the Commissioner (Appeals) and after making such further inquiry as may be necessary, and the Income-tax Officer shall thereupon proceed to make such fresh assessment and determine, where necessary, the amount of tax payable on the basis of such fresh assessment." 7. Sub Section (2) of Section 251 of the Act imposes a duty on the Commissioner to provide an opportunity to the assessee before making any enhancement and reads thus: "The Commissioner (Appeals) shall not enhance an assessment or a penalty or reduce the amount of refund unless the appellate has had a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement or reduction. Explanation:- In disposing of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) may consider and decide any matter arising out of the proceedings in which the order appealed against was passed, notwithstanding that such matter was not raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) by the appellant." 8. Section 251 of the Act does not inhibit the Commissioner from interfering with the orders of assessment made pursuant to the direction given by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 144B(4) of the Act. Section 251 of the Act does not inhibit the Commissioner from interfering with the orders of assessment made pursuant to the direction given by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 144B(4) of the Act. The view taken by the Tribunal that Section 144B(5) of the Act imposes a limitation of the appellate power is a wholly erroneous view, and does not find any support from the statutory provision dealing with the powers of the Appellate Authority. 9. When the statutory provision is clear, the width of the power conferred by the provision is not to be cut down, unless limitation therein is imposed expressly by statute or is implicit in the statute. Here, the Commissioner while hearing an appeal is required to examine the correctness of the order of assessment made. The fact that the assessment was made in conformity with the directions issued by another Officer who is below the Commissioner does not result in a restriction being imposed on the width of the appellate power. The assessment order does not gain immunity by reason of the same being in conformity with the direction issued under Section 144B(4) of the Act. While examining the correctness of that order, the Appellate Authority has available to it all the powers conferred on it by Section 251 of the Act. 10. It is also necessary to take note of the fact that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner is lower in hierarchy to that of the Commissioner, and it would be a strange result if it were to be held that the superior Officer, viz., the Commissioner while exercising the appellate power is bound by the direction given by his subordinate pursuant to which yet another Officer lower in the hierarchy the assessing Officer had made the order of assessment. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (53 I.T.R.225), a decision rendered by a three-Judge Bench of the Court, while dealing with the analogous provision in the Income-tax Act, 1922 observed that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has plenary powers in disposing of an appeal, and that his power is coterminous with that of the Income-tax Officer. It was observed by the Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. It was observed by the Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (187 I.T.R.688) that the Act does not place any restriction or limitation on the exercise of appellate power under Section 251 of the Act. 12. The observations of the Apex Court that the Appellate Authority can direct the Income-tax Officer to do what he has failed to do, has been misunderstood by the Tribunal as amounting to a limitation on the power of the appellate forum. That observation of the Court was only meant to emphasise the fact that the appellate power was plenary, and that it was open to that Appellate Authority to do all that the Income-tax Officer could do. That does not make the Appellate Authority subordinate to the intermediate Authority viz., the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who, under Section 144B of the Act, has the power to issue directions to the Assessing Officer. It is open to the Commissioner sitting in appeal to make the enhancement overriding the directions given by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. It is equally open to the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the assessment made and direct the assessing Officer to proceed to make a fresh assessment. 13. Our answer to the question referred, therefore, is in favour of the Revenue, and against the assessee.