controversy in this case is with regard to charging of interest under s. 139(8) of IT Act, 1961. assessee is registered firm. Its return for asst. yr. 1981-82 was filed late and, therefore, while finalising assessment under s. 143(3), interest under sub-s (8) of s. 139 was charged from assessee treating assessee firm as unregistered firm for purpose of computation of assessed tax in reference to which interest under aforesaid sub-section was to be calculated. assessee challenged above charging of interest and pleaded before CIT (A) that levy of interest under sub-s (8) of s. 139 was not proper for two reasons as follows: (i) that assessee had reasonable cause for filing return late, that business of assessee was so extensive that it had to receive accounts and confirmation letters etc., from all over country on account of which delay in finalisation of accounts had taken place and that aforesaid reason for delay in filing return had been accepted by ITO as are reasonable and he had, therefore, not imposed penalty on assessee in terms of cl. (a) of sub-s. (1) of s. 271 of Act for late submission of return. What was good reason for late submission of purpose of s. 271(1) (a) would also be good reason for not charging interest in terms of s. 139(8) of IT Act, 1961; and (ii) That in any case, interest was chargeable from assessee with reference to tax determined on firm as registered firm and it was wrong to have charged interest on assessee firm treating it as unregistered firm. For above proposition assessee relied upon decision of Karnataka High Court in case of Addl. CIT vs Mahadeshwara Lorry Service and ITO, CC-1, Bangalore vs. M. Nagappa both reported in (1980) 18 CTR (Kar) 147: (1982) 129 ITR 516 (Kar). ld. CIT (A) did not accept first contention of assessee, but accepted second one and, therefore, directed that ITO should "charge interest on basis of tax payable as registered firm." above order of ld. CIT (A) is not acceptable to Department and hence present appeal. ld. departmental representative pointed out that decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has since been considered by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and has been disapproved by it vide decision in Mohanlal Soni vs. Union of India & Ors. (1983) 33 CTR (Cal) 193: (1983) 143 ITR 436 (Cal). Therefore, it was requested on behalf of Revenue that we should reverse order of ld. CIT (A) and should restore that of ITO. aforesaid submission is resisted by ld. counsel for assessee who pointed out that interest was, in fact, not at all validly charged in present case and there was no decision by ITO to charge interest. Interest apparently had been charged by somebody other than ITO and such charging of interest would never be justified in law. In support of its case assessee relied upon decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of CIT vs. Lalit Prasad Rohini Kumar (1979) 8 CTR (Cal) 277: (1979) 117 ITR 603 (Cal). Ld. departmental representative submits that aforesaid submission does not arise out of order of ld. CIT (A) and inasmuch as assessee was not in appeal, it should not be allowed to raise plea. In any case, ld. departmental representative points out that ITO had given clear-cut direction in order that interest as per law may be charged and in his opinion, such direction is entirely in order. We have given careful consideration to facts of case and rival submissions. ld. CIT (A) was, in our opinion, not justified in relying on decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court when Hon ble Calcutta High Court has expressed dissent therefrom in case of Mohanlal Soni vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra). In view of above decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court it has to be held that interest to be charged in terms of sub-s. (8) s. 139 from registered firm will have to be computed with reference to tax payable by said firm treating it as unregistered. For above reason alone, however, we are unable to restore order of ITO. There is however great deal of merit in submission of ld. counsel for assessee that interest under s. 139(8) was not validly charged in this case. It is ITO who has to determine after taking into account all facts of case including provisions of r. 117A as to whether or not interest under sub-s (8) of s. 139 was chargeable. ITO instead of applying his own mind to subject, issued direction to his office to "charge interest as per law." There can be various kinds of interest which may be chargeable under law and above direction of ITO does not at all indicate to office mind of ITO as to which interest he is referring to. plain reading of aforesaid direction of ITO leaves impression on one's mind that he has not applied his own mind with regard to charging of interest from assessee. He is leaving this subject for determination of his office and whatever his office would do, he would sign. Such procedure is entirely unwarranted by law and, therefore, there is great deal of merit in submission of ld. counsel for assessee that charging of interest in aforesaid manner was invalid. above submission of assessee does derive support from observation of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of CIT vs. Lalit Prasad Rohini Kumar (supra) wherein their Lordships were considering circumstances in which interest was chargeable under s. 215/217. contention of ld. departmental representative that assessee was not in appeal and that in departmental appeal assessee could not raise new point, is not, in our opinion, correct. issue was raised by assessee before ld. CIT (A) who, by implication, rejected said submission. Under r. 27 of ITAT Rules, assessee can support order of ld. CIT (A) on point decided against him. appellant cannot, of course, be made worse than what it was, when it came to Tribunal, but if relief granted by ld. CIT (A) is capable of being defended on ground other than that decided by ld. CIT (A) in his order, such plea can always be raised by assessee. effect of accepting such plea would be to confirm order of ld. CIT (A). Even though if assessee had been in appeal, he would have been eligible for total relief on that account. In present case, as noted above, assessee is not in appeal and, therefore, assessee cannot get more relief than has already been granted to it by ld. CIT (A). This being so, we confirm order of ld. CIT (A) though on different ground and dismiss departmental appeal. In result, departmental appeal stands dismissed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. SHREE DURGA TRADERS