SINGHAL, J. — The Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur has referred the following question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated 29.07.1980 for the assessment year 1964-65: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in quashing the order passed u/s 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the reason that the ITO was not competent to charge any interest u/s 217 when the assessment order was made on 31.12. 75 u/s 147 (a)?" (2) Brief facts of the case are, that the assessee HUF was originally assessed by way of regular assessment on 3.10.1968 on the total income of Rs. 11,051/-. Thereafter, a settlement petition was moved to the CIT (Appeals) on 26.9.1974, which was decided on 24.3.1975 and pursuant to this settlement, the additional income of Rs. 91,000 was brought to tax for the year under appeal, for which voluntary return was submitted by the assessee on 28.6.1984. The assessment on the said return was completed under Section 147 (a) on 31.12.1975 on the total income of 1,02,051/-. Interest under Sec. 217 amounting to Rs. 1204/- was charged. Subsequently, the Income tax Officer sent a notice under Sec. 154 stating that less interest was charged by mistake and the amount of interest was to be revised. (3) The assessee contended before the ITO that while passing the order, the CIT (Appeals) inadvertantly restricted to charge the interest for first 12 months under Sec. 217, but it was clearly borne out from the case laws that interest under Sec. 217 was to be charged only for 12 months and the action of the CIT was the same for the instant case. The ITO negatived the contention of the assessee and charged interest under Sec. 217 for the greater period vide order passed under Sec. 154 of the Act. The Income tax Appellate Tribunal held that the ITO was not competent to charge any interest under Section 217 when the assessment order was made on 31.12.1975 under Sec. 147 (A) of the Act. (4) The arguments of both the learned counsel have been heard. (5) The submission of Mr. Bafna is that in accordance with the definition of assessment under Sec. 2 (8) the assessment includes re-assessment and clause 2 (40) defines regular assessment means the assessment made under Section 143 or 144. (4) The arguments of both the learned counsel have been heard. (5) The submission of Mr. Bafna is that in accordance with the definition of assessment under Sec. 2 (8) the assessment includes re-assessment and clause 2 (40) defines regular assessment means the assessment made under Section 143 or 144. It has been submitted that sub-section (6) of Sec. 215 is procedural in nature and if the assessment is made for the first time under Section 147, it shall be regarded as regular assessment for the purpose of Section 216, 217 and 273 of the Act. It has further been submitted that the charging of interest is automatic. (6) We have considered over the matter. The definition of Clause 2 (40) restrict the meaning of fresh assessment to the assessment made under Sections 143 or 144. Though the definition clause cannot over ride the specific language of the section, if it otherwise contemplates. The amendment which has been brought in Sec. 215 by insertion of sub-section (6) cannot be considered to be procedural in nature as it affects the liability and creates a fresh liability of interest and more over it is applicable to the first assessment, which is made under Sec. 147. In the present case, the first assessment was made under Sec. 143 on 3.10.1986 and the second assessment which has been made under Sec. 147 (a) is not even otherwise covered by the specific language of subsection (6) of section 215. Although the interest is compensatory in nature, but there must be specific provision creating liability and if there is no right to receive the interest then the same cannot be charged simply on the ground that interest is compensatory in character. The charge must be in clear and unambiguous language. The liability, which has been created in restricted in respect of regular assessment. Since regular assessment has been defined to include the assessments made under Section s 143 and 144, the assessments under other sections cannot be included by inference. (7) This court in CIT vs. Multi Metals Ltd. (1), has held that fresh assessment made under CITs direction under Sec. 263 is not a regular assessment and interest under Sec. 215 cannot be levied in such assessments. (7) This court in CIT vs. Multi Metals Ltd. (1), has held that fresh assessment made under CITs direction under Sec. 263 is not a regular assessment and interest under Sec. 215 cannot be levied in such assessments. (8) Besides this, the various High Courts have taken the view that the interest under Sec. 217 in the proceedings under Sec. 147 (a) cannot be levied in the following cases beside others, Charls Dsouza (2), CIT vs. Padma Timber Depot (3), Prakashlal Khandelwal vs. ITO (4), Manohar Gidwani vs. CIT (5), D. Swaroop, ITO vs. Gehmmon India Ltd. (6) and CIT vs. Ganesh Ram Nayak (7). (9) In view of the definition of regular assessment under Section 2 (40) which has restricted the meaning only to the assessments made under Sections 143 or 144, the interest under Sections 215 and 217 is payable only up to the date of regular assessment under these sections on the basis of the tax determined by regular assessment. The interest, therefore, cannot be charged up to the date or on the basis of re-assessment made under Sec. 147. In view of this interpretation of law, we are of the view that the view taken by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is in accordance with law and the Tribunal was right in holding that interest can not be charged under Sec. 217 of the IT Act, 1961 on re-asssessment made under Sec. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. (10) The reference is answered accordingly in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. (11) No order as to costs.