(1.) THE respondent in each of these cases is a Hindu undivided family and was assessed to tax by the first appellant by way of regular assessment including levy of interest under sections 139(8) and 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against which appeals were filed. When the said appeals were pending, the assessments came to be reopened by issue of a notice under section 148 and reassessments we also made subsequently. While completing the reassessment, the Income-tax Officer levied interest under section 139(8) and interest under section 215 of the Act. Again, each of these orders was the subject-matter of appeals before the second of appellant against levy of interest under section 139(8) and section 215 of the Act was challenged in that appeal. THE second appellant held that the appeal against such levy is not maintainable at all on the facts and circumstances of the case and refused to interfere with the said levy. Against that order, the respondent filed a writ petition before this court. THE learned single judge (see [1992] 197 ITR 692) allowed the writ petition by following the decision of this court in Charles D'Souza v. CIT [1984] 147 ITR 694. Aggrieved by that order, the present appeal is filed.
(2.) THE contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that interest under sections 139(8) and 215 of the Act, though not leviable in reassessments under section 147 of the Act, the respondent is liable to pay interest levied under the original assessment. This contention is plainly untenable in view of the decision of this court in CIT v. Mysore Iron and Steel Ltd. [1986] 157 ITR 531. In that case, after making a review of the case-law, this court considered the question as to the effect of reopening an assessment and held that the original assessment gets totally effaced in that event. When there is a total effacement of the original assessment order, it is impossible to understand the contention raised and how the interest levied thereunder still survives.