S.R. Chauhan, JM. : As the above three appeals involve common points, so we are disposing them off by this common order for the sake of convenience.

2. ITA Nos. 255/Jp/94, 256/Jp/94 and 257/Jp/94 are appeals by assessee for assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89, respectively, and are directed against three separate orders of CIT(A), Jodhpur, each dated 10th December, 1993.

3. The original regular assessments for assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 were completed on 14th August, 1986, 16th October, 1987 and 14th October 1988, respectively.

However, the said regular assessments were reopened and reassessments were made under section 143(3)/148 for the above three years on 29th March, 1993. In the said reassessments, the Assessing Officer charged interest under sections 139(8) and 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the all the above the assessment years. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) who vide his aforesaid impugned orders for the three assessment years confirmed the interest levied under sections 139(8) and 215. Hence aggrieved, the assessee has carried this matter in appeal before the Tribunal.

4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the records.

5. The assessee has raised one common ground in all the above three appeals and the said ground disputes the charging of interest levied under sections 139(8) and 215 of the IT Act in reassessments framed under section 148. The learned authorised representative of assessee has contended that the interest under sections 139(8) and 215 IT Act, 1961, cannot be charged in reassessment framed under section 148 and that the said interests can be charged only in regular assessment which is framed under section 143 or 144 of the IT Act. He has cited CIT v. Mannalal Nirmal Kumar [1992] 106 CTR (Raj.) 144/[1992] 198 ITR 556 (Raj.) and CIT v. Khodey Brewing & Distilling Industries Ltd. [2000] 159 CTR (Kar.) 354/ [2000] 243 ITR 836 (Kar.). He has contended that in the regular assessments in the assessment years 1986-87 and 1988-89, no interest under section 139(8) nor under section 215 was charged but in assessment year 1987-88, interest under section 215 was charged though no interest under section 139(8) was charged. He has contended that in the situation, at best, only in assessment year 1987-88 interest can be charged under section 215 in reassessment but that also cannot be increased on additions made in reassessment as the interest under section 215 has already been charged in regular assessment.

6. As against the above, the learned Departmental Representative of Revenue has contended that no appeal lies against levy of interest alone, though if other grounds are also there with the assessee, can challenge in appeal the levy of interest also along with the other grounds. He has cited ANZ Grindlays Bank PLC v. CIT [1999] 157 CTR (Cal.) 161/[2000] 241 ITR 269 (Cal.). He has contended that the interest charged under the above sections is compensatory in nature for the reason that the assessee happens to have withheld the Revenue’s amount of tax so the interest is chargeable. He has cited Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 58 CTR (SC) 112/[1986] 160 ITR 961 (SC). He has contended that the law, as contended in section 215 IT Act, has been amended w.e.f. 1st April, 1985, and amended provision of section 215(3) provides for the increase or reduction of interest in accordance with the increase or reduction in the amount on which interest is payable. He has contended that the aforecited judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court relates to the law existing prior to the amendment which was made w.e.f. 1st April, 1985, so the same is not applicable. He has cited CIT v. Multimetals Ltd. [1990] 88 CTR (Raj.) 1/[1991] 187 ITR 98 (Raj.) and contended that even if zero interest is there, then also the interest can be increased. He has contended that search was carried out and thereupon reassessment was ma