This appeal filed by Revenue is against order of CIT (A), Ahmedabad and ground taken is as follows: "On facts and circumstances of case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that there was justifiable reason for delay in filing valid return and thereby directing to waive interest chargeable under s. 139(8) of IT Act, 1961". facts as found in order of CIT (A) are as follows: "Original return of income was filed on 30th June, 1977 and tax under s . 140A amounting to Rs. 5,933 was paid on 23rd June, 1977. ITO had issued notice under s. 143(2) on 31st Aug., 1978. ITO thereafter found that Return of Income was not signed by any partner but it was signed by Manager of firm Shri N.C. Mehta. He, therefore, asked assessee as to why return of income should not be considered as illegal. assessee thereafter filed fresh return of income on 31st March, 1980 showing same total income and attaching same enclosure as were attached to original return of income. Since ITO did not consider original return of income as valid return, he has taken date of 31st March, 1980 as date of filing return of income and accordingly charged interest under s. 139(8)." On appeal, CIT (A) deleted interest charged by ITO. According t o him, there was sufficient justification for delay in filing valid return on 31st March, 1980 and, therefore, ITO was not justified in charging interest under s. 139(8). He also rejected submission of assessee that in view of s. 292(B) of Act return of income should have been taken as valid return. At time of hearing ld. departmental representative initially submitted that no appeal was provided for charge of interest under s. 139(8). Besides proper course for CIT(A) was not to delete interest because considering r. 117A of IT Rules fully justified deletion of interest charged. But this could not be done by CIT especially when amount of interest exceeding Rs. 1,000 for which IAC's permission was necessary. ld. counsel appearing on behalf of assessee initially supported filing of appeal against interest charged under s. 139(8) because assessee had also agitated against order of ITO on so many grounds. Reliance was placed on decision of Calcutta High Court in (1979) 8 CTR (Cal) 332: (1979) 117 ITR 60 (Cal) in case of CIT vs. Lalit Prasad Rohini Kumar. Besides deletion of interest was also justified on basis of Supreme Court decision in case of CIT vs. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC). Against decision of Calcutta High Court even SLP was rejected vide (1983) 143 ITR 64 (statutes). From compilation relevant papers were brought to our notice in support that there was no difference in particulars of income as per return originally filed and as per return filed subsequently. We have considered submission and materials. Considering scheme of s. 139, it is clear that interest under s. 139(8) is compensatory in character and not penal in nature. Therefore, we do not see any reason for invoking provisions of s. 139 for simply additional liability. Even r. 117A prescribes circumstances justifying deletion of interest and CIT(A) has acted accordingly. We do not see any wisdom in Revenue's stand that deletion should have been done by ITO and not by CIT(A). Besides s. 139 only gives power to charge interest. Charge is not must. Power is complete with duty, duty not to abstain from doing something, in this case use of discretion not to charge interest. ITO has not given reasons for not invoking charge under s. 139(8) though circumstances demanded. He has only stated "charge interest under s. 139(8)" in his order without proper application of mind. We uphold order of CIT(A) in toto and dismiss this appeal. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. KHIMCHAND NATVERLAL & CO.