ORDER V.K. Singhal, J.--The Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated 1-2-1996, in respect of the assessment year 1981-82 under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 : "'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest under section 139(8)/215 of the Act levied in the original assessment does not survive when a reassessment is done under section 148 of the Act particularly in view of the apex Court's decision in CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. . ? 2. The facts of the case are that there was reassessment under article 147 of the Income Tax Act in the case of the assessee. The interest charged under sections 139(8) and 215 was deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals) following the decision given by this Court in the case of Charles D'souza Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka-II, (1984) 147 ITR 694 KAR. In the appeal preferred before the Tribunal, it was found that there is another decision in the case of Income-tax Officer and Another Vs. K.L. Srihari (Huf), K.L. Narayana and K.L.A. Padmanabhasa and Another (Huf), (1992) 197 ITR 694 KAR, and accordingly the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld by the Tribunal. This reference was made in the light of the judgment given in Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. v. CIT. 3. Argument of the learned standing counsel for the department is heard. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the judgment given by the apex Court in the case of Sun Engg. Works (P) Ltd. was on altogether a different issue and so far as the question of levy of interest in the reassessment proceedings under sections 139(8) and 215 is concerned, the matter was considered by this Court in the case of Income-tax Officer and Another Vs. K.L. Srihari (Huf), K.L. Narayana and K.L.A. Padmanabhasa and Another (Huf), (1992) 197 ITR 694 KAR, wherein, following the decision given in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka-II, Bangalore Vs. Mysore Iron and Steel Limited, ILR (1985) KAR 1499 it was observed by the Court that once the proceedings under article 134 (old Act) are validly initiated the. jurisdiction of the NO is not restricted to the portion of the income that escapes assessment. 4. Mysore Iron and Steel Limited, ILR (1985) KAR 1499 it was observed by the Court that once the proceedings under article 134 (old Act) are validly initiated the. jurisdiction of the NO is not restricted to the portion of the income that escapes assessment. 4. On -behalf of the a is pointed o t that assessee, it is point out that the Taxation laws (Amendment Act), 1984, have inserted clause (b) in Explanation 2 of article 139(8) where it is provided that, where as a result of an order under article 147 or article 154 or S. 155 or article 250 or article 254 or article 260 or article 262 or article 263, tax on which interest was payable under these sections has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced. In a proceeding under article 147 no interest is to be charged and, therefore, it should be deemed to have been reduced to nil and the. earlier interest will come, to an end. It is also pointed out that in the case of NO Vs. K.L. Srihari, SLP 21273-,2176/95. 5. Learned counsel for the assessee has brought to our notice that in the assessment order dated 24-9-1984, directions were given for charging of interest under sections 139(8) and 215 of the Act besides other penalty proceedings. It is submitted that in the meantime 1 6 1 t he 1 re was an appeal and in pursuance of appeal order dated 31-1-1986 the liability of tax was determined vide order dated 13-2-1986. The reassessment was framed on 17-7-1987, in which the interest on F.D. of Rs. 14,589 which was not included in the income earlier was offered by the assessee 'and, therefore,. the proceedings under article 1 147 were initiated. It is submitted that under article 147 there is 'no liability of interest. In this regard various judgments have been relied on: the point that at the relevant time there was no liability under article 147 of interest. 6. The Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mannalal Nirmal Kumar, (1992) 198 ITR 556 Raj, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. In this regard various judgments have been relied on: the point that at the relevant time there was no liability under article 147 of interest. 6. The Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mannalal Nirmal Kumar, (1992) 198 ITR 556 Raj, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Padam Kumari Surana, (1994) 207 ITR 155 Raj, Gopi Ram Lila v. CIT (1995) 129 CTR (Raj) 387, CIT v. Kapoor Chand Ram Chand (1995) 129 CTR (Raj) 457 : (1995) 216 ITR 319 (Raj) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Multimetals Ltd., (1991) 187 ITR 98 Raj, Charles D. Souza v. CIT (supra) SLP dismissed by Supreme Court (1990) 186 ITR 28 (St), B. Babu and Co. Vs. Sixth Income Tax Officer and Another, (1987) 163 ITR 654 KAR, CIT v. Padma Timber Depot (1987) 67 CTR (AP) 109 : (1988) 169 ITR 646 (AP), Prakash Lal Khandelwal v. Income Tax Officer, K.L. Narayana Vs. Income-tax Officer and Another, (1992) 197 ITR 692 KAR, Income Tax Officer v. K.L. Srihari (supra), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. United Machinery and Appliances, (1993) 200 ITR 569 Cal, S. Mageshwari Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another, (1993) 201 ITR 472 KAR, K. Venkatesh Nayak Vs. Income-tax Officer and another, ILR (1993) KAR 1139, CIT Vs. Triple Crown Agencies, CIT v. Harbhajan Singh (SLP (Civil) No. 15877 of 1986- (1991) 191 ITR 78, Shakti Tiles Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1996) 218 ITR 612 MP : TP CIT v., Rajesh Takes (1996) 133 CTR (P&H) 474 : (1994) 220 ITR 107 (P&H) 6, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kamlapat Moti Lal, (1996) 222 ITR 9 All, Chief CIT v. Haryana Rang Udyog (CC Nos. 7729 of 1997- (1997) 228 ITR. 156. and Modi Rubber Ltd. Vs. CIT 156 CTR (All) 307 : (1999), 235 itR 48 All), has held that assessment under section 148 is not a regular assessment and, therefore, interest under sections 217 139(8) cannot be charged. So far as proposition is concerned, there cannot any dispute that in reassessment no interest could b e charged. 7. The question arises as to whether the liability which has already been incurred comes to an end. At this stage directions which were given by the Income Tax Officer in his order dated 24-9-1984, to charge 'Interest and such interest was levied in the reassessment order dated 17-7-1987. 7. The question arises as to whether the liability which has already been incurred comes to an end. At this stage directions which were given by the Income Tax Officer in his order dated 24-9-1984, to charge 'Interest and such interest was levied in the reassessment order dated 17-7-1987. As a matter of fact, the Income Tax Officer should have passed separate orders as was directed in the order dated 24-9-1984. The entire confusion, has arisen be clause the directions given in the order dated 24-9-1984, were made art o the reassessment proceedings. The income which was assessed in' the proceedings under section 147 was by including the interest of Rs. 14,589 on which no interest could have been charged in the reassessment proceedings. The earlier order dated 24th Sept., had become final. Against the levy of interest in the reassessment order dated 17-7-1987, an appeal wag preferred by the assessee and the Commissioner (Appeals) relying on, the decision of this Court: in Charles D'Souza v. CIT (supra) has deleted the interest. The Tribunal has 1 referred the decision given in the case of Income Tax Officer v. K.L. Srihari (HUF) (supra) and the earlier order of Commissioner (Appeals). In the case of Charles D'souza it was observed that the 'interest' can be levied only in the case of regular assessment, i.e., the assessment made under section 143 or 144 and it will not include the assessment or reassessment made 'Under section 147. So far as this provision of law is concerned the liability of interest under the proceedings under section 147 will not arise. ' But that would be only in respect of the income determined In the proceedings under section 147. 8. In Income Tax Officer v. K.L. Srihari (supra) the, question was that the interest was not levied under sections 139(8) and 215 in the original assessment order. In the present case, the interest was not 'levied but was 'directed to be levied. There was further observation that the original assessment gets totally effaced if such assessment is reopened. In the case of CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (supra) it was observed that the order made in relation to the escaped turnover does not affect the operative portion of the order particularly if it was acquired finality and the original order retains both its character and identity. In the case of CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (supra) it was observed that the order made in relation to the escaped turnover does not affect the operative portion of the order particularly if it was acquired finality and the original order retains both its character and identity. In other words, it was considered that the reassessment proceedings cannot be to the benefit of the assessee. 9. The judgment of Sun Engineering Works (supra) was considered by the apex Court in KL. Srihari's case (supra) and on perusal of the original assessment order dated 19-3-1983, and the reassessment order dated 16-7-1987, under section 147 it was found that fresh assessment was made of the entire income which has effaced the earlier proceedings. If the observation of this judgment are kept in view and it is seen from the reassessment order which has been passed in the case of the assessee then it will be seen that there is no fresh determination of income which has already been determined in the earlier assessment proceedings. That figure has only been brought for reference and it cannot be considered that it was determination of the income to that extent. The decision, therefore, given in the case of KL. Srihari (supra) does not assist the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee. We are of the opinion that if the assessment orders have been framed and directions have been given in the said assessment order for charging the interest, the order will become final and the directions have to be implemented by the Income Tax Officer. It is only in respect of the reassessment that the interest would not be levied in the proceedings under section 147. 10. In Modi Industries Limited, Modinagar and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi and Another, (1995) 216 ITR 759 SC, the question has arisen as to whether the interest is payable under section 214 if the amount of tax determined as payable by the Income Tax Officer is reduced in appeal. It was observed that : "After computation of the total income under section 143, the Income Tax Officer will have to determine the tax payable by an assessee. This he can do only after giving credit to the assessee for the amount of Income Tax standing to his credit. It was observed that : "After computation of the total income under section 143, the Income Tax Officer will have to determine the tax payable by an assessee. This he can do only after giving credit to the assessee for the amount of Income Tax standing to his credit. Once the amount of advance tax has been treated as Income Tax payable by the assessee and dealt with such in the assessment order, there is no scope for treating it as advance tax once again. The excess realisation of advance tax, upon assessment and adjustment, becomes refundable under section 237. No further interest is payable on it under section 214. Interest, if any, on delayed refund is payable under section 243. If a further sum of money becomes refundable as a result of any appellate order, that amount has to be refunded under section 240, and with interest, if any, under section 244. The refund amount is not treated any more in the Act as a portion of the advance tax paid by the assessee. What is refunded pursuant to an appellate order is a portion of what was treated and dealt with as payment of Income Tax by the assessee. Its character is in no way different from the tax paid pursuant to notice of demand under section 156 by an assessee. Any tax refundable. pursuant to the appellate order has to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of sections 240 and 244. There is no scope for invoking the provisions of section 214 in such a situation." In this case the word "regular assessment" as used in section 214 was interpreted to mean the assessment under section 143/144 of the Income Tax Act. It was observed that the amount on which interest is to be paid is the amount of advance tax payable in excess of the tax payable as calculated in the regular assessment (first assessment), the amount on which the interest was payable do not vary due to the reduction or enhancement of tax as a result of any subsequent proceedings. The matter was again considered in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Amalgamations Ltd., (1998) 232 ITR 318 SC where also the original assessment order was set aside and the assessment was framed afresh. The question was answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The matter was again considered in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Amalgamations Ltd., (1998) 232 ITR 318 SC where also the original assessment order was set aside and the assessment was framed afresh. The question was answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The detailed discussions of section 214 and liability of interest on the refund as discussed in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. (supra) makes it clear that the refund is limited upto the date of assessment and thus the liability of interest upto the date of assessment is not affected by the subsequent appeal or revision, etc., though the quantum may be affected. The case of K.L. Srihan (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the assessee, where, it was observed that the effect of reopening of assessment is that the original assessment gets totally effaced, can have limited application i,e., Where the entire income is reassessed again but, if it is only a case of addition of a particular item of income in reassessment proceedings then on the basis of the judgment of K1, Srihari (supra) interest on such reassessed: amount cannot be charged. The income which has already been determined in the assessment order and confirmed/ reduced/enhanced in appeal, in the light of the decision given in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. (supra) the liability of interest upto the date of the assessment would be determined in accordance with the provisions of sections 243, 139(8) and section 215 of the Act. The provisions of sections 139(8) and section 215 are not applicable to the reassessment proceedings but to the regular assessment proceedings which have already been applied, and that order has become final. The only objection which could be raised is that the interest has been levied in the reassessment proceedings. If the, separate order was passed for levy of interest under section 139(8) and section 215, that order could not have been said to have been passed in the reassessment proceedings. Simply because the two orders have been combined of one year it could not be considered that the interest have been levied in reassessment proceedings. If the, separate order was passed for levy of interest under section 139(8) and section 215, that order could not have been said to have been passed in the reassessment proceedings. Simply because the two orders have been combined of one year it could not be considered that the interest have been levied in reassessment proceedings. Since the original assessment in the present case has not been affected at all and only the interest income has been added in the reassessment proceedings, finality which have been given to assessment cannot be considered to be non-existent nor any consequences flowing therefrom would obliterate the liability of the assessee. 11. The assessment is a term which include computation and determination of the income and tax due thereon. Under the Income Tax Act the procedure is given for assessment by which the income is determined. There is application of mind, in determining the income and computation of tax liability. If the income is once determined, there may be rectification of a particular item of income but that will be limited to that item itself and the entire assessment is not affected. In reassessment also there can be circumstances where the total income is recomputed again and in that case the original assessment order is effaced. But in a case where there is no determination of the income in reassessment proceedings of the figure which has already been assessed and has only been added to the income determined in reassessment proceedings it cannot be considered that the said income is reassessed. There may be a number of contentions which can be raised against the assessed income or have already been raised and have become final in appeal, revision, reference, etc., In reassessment proceedings on the income from interest of Rs. 13,000 has been determined by reassessment which will not affect the assessment which has already been made on the figure of Rs. 1,60,90,603. 13,000 has been determined by reassessment which will not affect the assessment which has already been made on the figure of Rs. 1,60,90,603. Following the decision given in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. (supra) we are of the view that the liability of interest under sections 139(8) and 215 could be restricted upto the date of assessment and it cannot be said that there is no liability of interest under sections 139(8) and 215 in respect of the default which has already been found and determined in the assessment proceedings and for which directions were given to charge the interest in the assessment proceedings and have been computed in compliance thereof. 12. The ITRC stands disposed of with the above observations.