interesting issue is involved in this appeal. assessee filed return declaring total income at minus figures of Rs. 23,06,230. ITO, however, computed total loss of Rs. 16,35,954. Accordingly, he forwarded draft of proposed order of assessment to assessee on 2-3-1982 under section 144b (1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). assessee did not file any objections and assessment was, consequently, finalised as drafted. Thereafter assessee filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who was of opinion that since assessee had not filed any objections within permissible time of 7 days nor did he file any application for extension of time as provided in section 144B (2) , ITO had to complete assessment on basis of draft order. Relying upon decision of Nagpur Bench of Tribunal in case of Zila Krishi Audyogik Sahakari Sangh Ltd. v. ITO Trigest, Vol. IV, p. 129, he held that assessee could not be said to be file aggrieved by assessment order and, hence, it forfeited its right to file appeal under section 246 of Act. assessee has come up in second appeal before us. 2. We have heard representatives of parties at length in this appeal. representatives of parties drew our attention to decision of Special Bench of Tribunal at Bombay in case of ITO v. Sippy Films [1982] ITD 1031, wherein it was held that silence cannot be construed as positive acceptance and by merely not filing objections to draft assessment order, it could not be said that assessee should be deemed to have accepted assessment. Therefore, appeal filed by assessee before Commissioner (Appeals) was maintainable. representative of department was not in position to produce any contrary judgment of Tribunal even one relied upon by Commissioner (Appeals) but referred to judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Gupta & Sons (P.) Ltd. [1984] 146 ITR 506. In this case question in dispute was whether ITO had power to condone delay in making application under section 146 of Act because there was no specific provision in Act and High Court was view that he had no such power and if application was not filed within time, same had to be dismissed. According to departmental representative assessee was bound to file objections to draft assessment order within time prescribed by section 144B and had failed to do so. If now its objections are considered in appeal, it would be indirectly extending limitation for these objections which assessee has already lost. To our mind there is difference between two proceedings. Even if assessee had filed objections, and they had been rejected by IAC, assessee was entitled to file in appeal against ultimate assessed income. In other words, right of appeal is entirely different from right to take objections under section 144B and in any case when there is direct decision of Tribunal on subject, we are not inclined to take different view. Accordingly, we accept appeal, set aside order of Commissioner (Appeals) and restore matter to his file for fresh decision on merits of case filed before him. 3. For statistical purposes, appeal is partly allowed as such. *** JAGANNATH JEEWANMAL WOOLLEN MILLS (P) LTD v. INCOME TAX OFFICER