Judgment :- BAKTHAVATSALAM J. The petitioner challenges the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax in revision under section 264 of the Act Notice of motion was ordered by S. Ramalingam J. on July 21, 1989. Mr. C. V. Rajan, Government Advocate, appears for the Department. He points out the amendment made to section 139 of the Income-tax Act under the Taxation Laws .(Amendment) Act, 1970, with effect from April 1, 1971. Under the amended-provision, the levy of interest is automatic unlike the provision as. It was before the amendment. Therefore, in my view, the decision reported in CIT v. M. Chandra Sekhar 1985 AIR(SC) 114, 1985 (151) ITR 433, 1984 (2) Scale 973 , 1985 (1) SCC 283 , 1985 (2) SCR 215 , 1985 UJ 262 , 1985 (44) CTR 110, 1985 (20) TAXMAN 3, 1985 TaxLR 497, 44 CTR(SC) 110, 1985 SCC(Tax) 85 (SC) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The assessment year in this case is 1981-82 to which the amended section applies. Mr. R. Janakiraman, learned counsel for the petitioner, relies on the decision reported in Ajit Singh Rais v. CIT 1988 (174) ITR 418, 1988 (72) CTR 214 (Gauhati). I find from the facts of that case, that that case related to the assessment years 1963-64 to 1967-68. As such, it will not apply to the facts of the present case. It is well settled that levy of interest Is not penal interest in nature and in appropriate cases, therefore, it will be permissible for the assessing authority to levy interest besides imposing a penalty see the decisions reported in Express Newspapers (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 1973 (88) ITR 255 (Mad) and Kodur Orange Produce Co. v. CIT 1977 (110) ITR 124Mad). There are no merits in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner stating that once the assessing authority has extended the time, it should be presumed that penalty is not leviable. The writ petition will, therefore, stand dismissed. No costs.