Judgment 1. In this reference under Sec.256(1) of the Income-tax Act, the question referred to us for our opinion is : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that interest cannot be charged under Sec.139 by taking recourse to Sec.154 ?" 2. The question referred to us is concluded by two decisions of this court in CIT V/s. Ashok Trading Company [1986] 160 ITR 663 and CIT V/s. M. N. Sen Gupta and Co. [1986] 160 ITR 670. 3. Some facts in brief must be set out to show the similarity of facts between the previous pronouncements of this court and the present case. In this case, we are concerned with the assessment year 1971-72. The matter falling for consideration only relates to an order in regard to payment of interest. Since the return had been filed late, the Income-tax Officer was bound to charge interest in terms of the provisions contained in Sec.139(8) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter called "the Act") which lays down that the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest. Some time after the assessment order had been passed, the Income-tax Officer found that there had been a mistake in the assessment order in not charging interest in terms of Sec.139(8) of the Act. He, therefore, initiated proceeding for rectification in terms of Sec.154 of the Act. Having initiated the proceeding, the Income-tax Officer rectified the order by charging interest on the assessed sum. The assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the order of the Income-tax Officer on the footing that the Income-tax Officer who had made the assessment must be deemed to have waived the charging of interest. Being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Revenue filed appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which upheld the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner following the decision of the Supreme Court in S.A.L. Narayan Row V/s. Ishwarlal Bhagwan Das [1965] 57 ITR 149. Hence, the present reference before us under Sec.256(1) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Revenue filed appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which upheld the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner following the decision of the Supreme Court in S.A.L. Narayan Row V/s. Ishwarlal Bhagwan Das [1965] 57 ITR 149. Hence, the present reference before us under Sec.256(1) of the Act. 4. In the case of CIT V/s. Ashok Trading Company [1986] 160 ITR 663, the question referred to this court was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that interest liable to be charged under Sec.139 had been waived by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and that no order could be passed under Sec.154 of the Act. In the case of CIT V/s. M.N. Sen Gupta and Company [1986] 160 ITR 670 (Pat), the same question fell for consideration. The question referred was whether the Tribunal was correct in presuming that the Income-tax Officer had exercised his discretion in favour of the assessee by not charging interest under Sec.139(2) of the Act at the time of completing the original assessment and in holding that the provisions of Sec.154 were not applicable for rectifying the original order. The same question falls for consideration before us in the present reference as well. In our view, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.A.L. Narayan Row [1965] 57 ITR 149 is no more the law of the land after the amendment of Sec.139(8) and the enactment of Rule 117A of the Income-tax Rules. 5. The liability to charge interest has been made obligatory under Sec.1 39(8). The Taxing Officer has no jurisdiction in that behalf since 1962 when the Income-tax Act, 196), came into being. The only relief which an assessee could expect was an order for reduction or for waiver in terms of Rule 117A. Rule 117A empowers an Income-tax Officer to waive charging of interest in terms of Clauses (iv) and (v) of Rule 117A. Those provisions, however, arc hedged in by a proviso which lays down that where the amount of interest exceeds Rs. 1,000, reduction or waiver can be ordered only with the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In this case, it is nobodys case that the approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had been obtained. In that view of the matter, waiver cannot be implied. Without approval, the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to waive. 1,000, reduction or waiver can be ordered only with the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In this case, it is nobodys case that the approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had been obtained. In that view of the matter, waiver cannot be implied. Without approval, the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to waive. Thus, the non-charging of interest was clearly an error apparent on the face of the record. That error could be rectified in terms of Sec.154 of the Act. 6. In our view, therefore, in terms of the two earlier pronouncements of this court, the Tribunal was not correct in holding that interest could not be charged by taking recourse to Sec.154 of the Act. The reference is thus discharged in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference is thus answered with costs of Rs. 500 payable by the assessee to the Revenue, Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in terms of Sections 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.