N. K. SODHI, CJ. ( 1 ) M/s. Balakrishna Breeding Farms Private Limited is the assessee before us and the relevant assessment years are 1993-94 to 1995-96 and 1997-98, it has filed these writ appeals against the order dated 1-12-2003 passed by the learned single judge dismissing Writ Petitions Nos. 45504-07/2003 upholding the order dated 20-2-2003 passed by the Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore granting partial relief to the assessee in regard to the waiver of interest levied under section 234 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called The Act ). Facts giving rise to these appeals in so far as they are relevant, lie in a narrow compass and these may first be noticed. ( 2 ) THE Assessee is engaged in the business of hatchery it filed its returns of income for the relevant assessment years in time claiming, amongst others, the benefit of special deduction under sections 80- HHA and 80-I of the Act. This exemption was claimed on the basis of a division bench judgment of this court in C. I. T Vs. Rahebar Farms Limited I. T. R. C. No. 25/1991 wherein this court had held that units engaged in the business of hatcheries were manufacturing or producing an article or thing and as such were entitled to claim the special deduction under sections 80-HHA and 80-I of the Act. The income tax returns were accepted by the assessing officer and the assessments were completed for all the years under section 143 (3) of the Act. The tax payable in terms thereof had been paid in time. The assessee had not paid any advance tax on the amounts claimed as deductions under sections 80-HHA and 80-I of the Act. The judgment of this court in Rahebar farms case (supra) was reversed by the supreme court in C. I. T Vs. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Limited. , and Others 237 I. T. R. 174. This judgment was pronounced by the apex court on 24-3-1999 and it was held therein that units engaged in poultry fanning or hatcheries do not manufacture any article or thing and as such they are not entitled to the special deduction under sections 80-HHA or 80-I of the Act. , and Others 237 I. T. R. 174. This judgment was pronounced by the apex court on 24-3-1999 and it was held therein that units engaged in poultry fanning or hatcheries do not manufacture any article or thing and as such they are not entitled to the special deduction under sections 80-HHA or 80-I of the Act. After the pronouncement of the judgment in Venkateshwara Hatcheries case (supra), the assessing officer issued notices dated 27-12-2000 to the assessee under section 148 of the Act for all the relevant assessment years stating therein that its incoming chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act and therefore he proposed to assess/reassess the same and called upon the assessee to file its revised returns of income. It is not in dispute that on receipt of these notices the assessee filed its returns of income for all the assessment years on 31-1-2001 and deposited all the tax that was payable in terms thereof. The assessments were completed by the assessing officer under section 143 (3) of the Act. The assessing officer levied interest under section 234-B of the Act on the ground that the assessee had defaulted in the payment of advance tax in regard to the amount which had now become taxable in view of the pronouncement of the supreme court in Venkateshwara Hatcheries case (supra ). It was then that the assessee filed an application before the chief commissioner of income tax claiming waiver of interest under section 234-B of the Act in terms of clause (d) of para 2 of the notification dated 23-5-1996 issued by the central board of direct taxes under section 119 (2) (a) of the Act. The Chief Commissioner partly allowed the application mid took the view that since the decision of the jurisdictional high court (Karnataka High Court) had been reversed by the supreme court on 24-3-1999 and having regard to the reasonable time which had to be allowed to the assessee for filing its revised returns winch according to him should be taken upto 30-4-1999, the assessee was liable to pay interest for the period subsequent to 30-4-1999. The interest payable upto 30-4-1999 was waived. The interest payable upto 30-4-1999 was waived. The Chief Commissioner while granting partial relief to the assessee observed as under:"the decision of the jurisdictional high court in the case of Rehabar farms vs. C. I. T. was pronounced on 23-10-1992 which was in favour of the assessee and the supreme courts decision reversing the above high court's decision was pronounced on 24-3-1999. In view of this, the petitioner is entitled for waiver of interest as per para 2 (d) of board's order u/s. 119 (2) (a) in F. No. 400/234/95/it- (b) dated 23-5-1996 and 30-1-1997. As the petitioner claims in the waiver petition that the advance tax was paid based on the decision of the Karnataka high court, it is entitled for waiver of interest upto the date of reversal of this decision. Considering the reasonable time allowable for filing of the revised return, the petitioner should have filed the revised return voluntarily and paid the taxes accordingly at least by 30th April 1999. The petitioner has filed the returns in response to notice u/s. 148 only on 31-1-2001. In view of the above, the interest chargeable u/s. 234-B upto 30-4-1999 vis-a-vis the income assessed for the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1997-98 on account of the supreme court's decision referred to above, is hereby waived. Interest, if any, chargeable subsequent to 30-4-1999 and upto the date of assessment shall be charged and collected by the assessing officer". ( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid order the assessee filed the writ petitions out of which the present writ appeals have arisen claiming that it was entitled to full waiver of interest and that it was not liable to pay interest even for the period after 30-4-1999. The matter was considered by the learned single judge who agreed with the reasoning of the chief commissioner of income tax and dismissed the writ petitions. It is against this order that the present writ appeals have been filed. ( 4 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that the writ appeals deserve to succeed. There is no gainsaying the fact that the assessee had filed its returns of income for the relevant assessment years in time and had paid all the taxes that were due thereon. ( 4 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that the writ appeals deserve to succeed. There is no gainsaying the fact that the assessee had filed its returns of income for the relevant assessment years in time and had paid all the taxes that were due thereon. It had claimed the benefit of special deduction under sections 80-HHA and 80-I of the Act basing its claim on the decision of this court dated 23-10-1992 in Rahebar farms case (supra ). The assessing officer accepted the claim and granted the exemption. The assessments were completed under section 143 (3) of the Act and the assessee was not required to pay any advance tax on the amounts which were claimed as deductions under section 80 HHA and 80-I of the Act. As already observed, the judgment of this court dated 23-10-1992 was reversed by the apex court in Venkateswara hatcheries case (supra) on 24-3-1999 and the amounts which were earlier claimed and allowed as deductions became liable to tax. There is no provision in the Act requiring the assessee to file a revised return of income in regard to the relevant assessment years after the supreme court had reversed the judgment of this court. Of course, the amounts which had earlier been allowed as deductions became liable to tax and it was for the assessing officer to issue a notice under section 148 of the Act to assess the escaped income. We do not agree with the reasoning of the chief commissioner that the assessee was required to file a revised return voluntarily after the judgment of this court had been reversed in appeal. The notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee in regard to the relevant assessment years only on 27-12-2000 and it is common case of the parties that the assessee filed its revised returns within the time allowed by the notice and the assessments were completed under section 143 (3) of the Act. The tax that became due in terms of the revised returns had also been paid within time. No delay could, thus, be attributed to the assessee. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax in these circumstances should have waived the entire interest that was levied by the Assessing Officer. The tax that became due in terms of the revised returns had also been paid within time. No delay could, thus, be attributed to the assessee. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax in these circumstances should have waived the entire interest that was levied by the Assessing Officer. In this view of the matter the order of the learned single judge affirming that of the chief commissioner of income tax cannot be sustained. ( 5 ) IN the result, the writ appeals are allowed. The order of the learned single judge dated 1-12-2003 and that of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax dated 20-2-2003 are set aside and Writ Petitions Bos. 45504-07/2003 are allowed. The interest levied on the assessee under section 234-Bof the Act stands waived. There is no order as to costs.