( 1 ) THE question referred under the Provisions of income tax Act, 1961, reads thus :"whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the cit (appeals) cancelling the order under Section 154 of the i. t. act passed by the ito charging interest under Section 139 (8)?" ( 2 ) FOR the assessment year 1979-80 (accountingperiod ending on 31-3-1979), asscssee filed the advance tax estimate only on 24-8-1979 and paid the estimated advance tax; this was much later to the due date of filing the estimate and payment of advance tax. The income tax officer completed the assessment on 27-11-1981; while so doing, he gave credit to the advance tax paid by the assessee and levied interest only on the balance. Subsequently, he realised that the advance tax paid by the assessee was beyond the due date and consequently opined the advance tax estimate as an invalid one; consequently he invoked Section 154 to rectify the alleged error and recomputed the interest payable under Section 139 (8) ignoring the advance tax paid. The commissioner (appeals) did not agree with this action of the income tax officer; the appellate tribunal also agreed with the view taken by the commissioner (appeals ). Hence this reference at the instance of the revenue. The appellate tribunal's reasoning was :"it is not as if that the tax paid in pursuance of the estimate filed on 24-8-1979 had been refunded to the assessee treating it as something other than advance-tax. To all intents and purposes the same has been adjusted against the tax due from the assessee on completion of the assessment, according to it the same treatment as would have been accorded to any normal payment of advance tax. Since there can be more than one opinion as to whether tax paid in pursuance of an estimate filed beyond the due date should be treated as advance tax or otherwise, we are of the opinion that a decision on such a debatable issue of law would not be available for rectification under Section 334. "the appellate tribunal opined that whether tax paid on 24-8-1979 should have been accorded the treatment of an advance tax was debatable and hence, question of rectifying the original order of assessment under Section 154 would not arise. "the appellate tribunal opined that whether tax paid on 24-8-1979 should have been accorded the treatment of an advance tax was debatable and hence, question of rectifying the original order of assessment under Section 154 would not arise. ( 3 ) THERE is no dispute that advance tax estimate was filed very much later to the due date and payment made was also after the due dates. But the question is, whether the revenue can ignore the receipt of the said amount, after having accepted it and appropriated as advance tax. ( 4 ) ADVANCE tax is to be computed under Section 209 and is to be paid on due dates of instalments as provided in Section 211. As per Section 215, assessee is liable to pay interest in case advance tax paid is less than the assessed tax to the extent stated in the provision. In the instant case, such an interest has been levied in the original order of assessment and the same was paid. In addition, under Section 139 (8) also, interest is leviable whenever there is a delay in furnishing the return and the advance tax paid is less than the assessed tax; however, proviso to Section 139 (8) empowers the income tax officer to waive or reduce this interest. ( 5 ) INTEREST is levied not as a deterrent measure against delayed payments, but to compensate the revenue; in case, the assessee defaults in discharging its statutory obligations, in the matter of delayed returns or delayed payment of advance tax, etc. , There are other Provisions in the act to penalise the assessee. Therefore, delay by itself in the matter of paying the advance tax cannot be construed as inviting the liabilities to pay the in- terest under Section 139 (8); in fact, proviso thereto indicates that levy of interest is not mandatory at all. ( 6 ) IN the instant case, question essentially is,whether the revenue can go behind its earlier actions in accepting the advance tax as a valid payment for the purposes of levying interest, or whether the delayed payment of advance tax is not a recognisable payment at all. ( 7 ) WE do not find any provision in the act against treating a delayed payment of advance tax as an invalid payment, which is liable to be ignored as non-esti. ( 7 ) WE do not find any provision in the act against treating a delayed payment of advance tax as an invalid payment, which is liable to be ignored as non-esti. Irrespective of the payment being within time or beyond the time, the payment does not lose its character as an advance payment; the consequences of delayed payment are to be found in the matter of computation of interest and the penal consequences. Since the delay is condonable and levy of interest under Section 139 (8) is excusable, it cannot be said that the delay by itself is fatal to the validity of payment. ( 8 ) IN rasiklal kamdar v commissioner of income tax, Madras, 1091. t. r. 56, at page 58 nature of advance tax was described by the Madras High Court, as :". . . . . EVEN the expression "advance tax" as understood by the common man, means only the tax paid prior to the assessment and can never mean a tax paid pursuant to an assessment, whether it is a provisional assessment or final assessment. Consequently, the expression "advance tax", whether understood as defined in Section 207 (2) of the act or as could be understood by the common man, will mean only one thing, viz. , The tax paid before the assessment as required by the act. As a matter of fact, the act itself contains elaborate machinery for payment of advance tax and, therefore, wherever the expression "advance tax" occurs in the Act, it can mean only that advance tax which was paid as required to be paid pursuant to the Provisions contained in the act. "payment by the assessee, in the instant case was prior to the assessment. ( 9 ) IN chandra metal co. V commissioner of income tax, 119 I. T. R. 279, Allahabad High Court held that the question whether interest is chargeable for delayed submission of returns by the assessee under Section 139 (1), when he had not applied for extension of time, is one on which there is serious difference of opinion amongst several high courts and the income tax officer cannot charge interest for the first time by resort to Section 154; non levy of interest cannot be held as an obvious mistake. This has been relied upon by the appellate tribunal for the view it has taken against the exercise of power under Section 154. The ratio of the said decision may not be directly applicable to the instant case. But it can be said that on facts of the instant case, when the income tax officer accepted the advance tax and appropriated the same as advance tax while making the assessment Order, and levied interest both under Section 215 and Section 139 (8), it is possible to take the view that, subsequently, he cannot treat the said payment of advance tax as invalid and non-est. ( 10 ) CONSEQUENTLY, we answer the question in the affirmative and against the revenue. --- *** --- .