R.M.L MEHTA, A.M. In these appeals Revenue has proposed for our consideration following common grounds: (1) ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that interest under s. 244 (1A) r/w s. 214 of Act is allowable in respect of payments made under s. 140A of Act and on advance-tax payment. (2) ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in treating advance-tax and s. 140A tax payments in pursuance of order of assessment so as to entitle for interest under s. 244(1A)of IT Act. As both appeals have been heard together and common points are involved, consolidated order is passed for sake of convenience. In respect of asst. yr. 1977-78 assessee consequent to order of CIT(A) dt. 2nd June, 1982 became entitled to refund of Rs. 85,845 which was granted on 26th Nov., 1982. aforesaid refund included sum of Rs. 84,515 being advance tax and self-assessment tax under s. 140A paid prior to assessment and sum of Rs. 1,330 being interest charged under s. 215. It appears from order under s. 154 passed by ITO that demand of Rs. 16 was raised at time of original assessment after notification. After receiving refund voucher of Rs. 85,845, assessee moved application for grant of "interest under s. 244." According to ITO, grant of interest under s. 244 did not arise as amount of tax, viz., Rs. 84,515 had been paid by assessee after 31st March, 1975. According to ITO, interest under s. 244 was to be given in respect of payments made prior to 31st March, 1975 interest under s. 244 (1A) would have to be on payments made after 31st March, 1975 in pursuance of order of assessment or penalty. As assessee's case was covered neither by s. 244 nor by s. 244 (1A), ITO rejected application under s. 154. In respect of asst. yr. 1978-79 refund of Rs. 1,95,830 was granted to assessee on 26th Nov., 1982 pursuant to order of CIT (A) dt. 2nd June, 1982. For same reasoning as in asst. yr. 1977-78, ITO rejected claim of assessee for interest under ss. 244 and 244 (1A) of Act. In appeal before CIT (A) assessee contended that in both years three instalments of advance tax had been paid in addition to which assessee had also made payment under s. 140A of Act. It was contended that these payments were made as matter of abundant precaution since assessee was contesting certain claims before ITO and he was not sure whether they would be considered or not. However, subsequently as result of appeal effects no amount of tax was found to be payable for both years and in fact substantial refunds were found due for both years. It was further argued that advance tax and tax under s. 140A are taxes which are deemed to have been paid on regular assessment and were, therefore, entitled to interest under s. 244(1A). For this proposition reliance was placed on following two decisions of Tribunal and decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court: (1) National Agricultural Co-op. Marketing Federation of India Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1981) 130 ITR 928 (Del). (2) ITO vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (1984) 8 ITD 601 (Del), Tribunal Bench Delhi (3) Smt. K. Mahalakshmamma vs. ITO (ITA No. 1637 and 1638 (Hyd) (Hyderabad Bench 'A' of 1982), 1984 Tax 73 (23) (Hyd. Trib). ld. CIT (A) after considering arguments of assessee as well as case laws cited before him, held as under: "I agree with contentions of learned representative. In view of reasoning given above with which I completely agree, ITO is directed to grant interest under s. 244 (1A) r/w s. 214 on amount of (i) advance-tax and (ii) s. 140A tax in accordance with law. In result, appeals are allowed." It is this action of CIT (A) which is now challenged before us. ld. D.R. has kly supported orders of ITO. According to him, s. 244(1A) applied in respect of tax payments made in post-assessment period and not to tax payments in pre-assessment period. He pressed into service Full Bench decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Bardolia Textile Mills vs. ITO (1985) 45 CTR (Guj) 274 (FB): (1985) 151 ITR 389 (Guj) (FB) to contend that payments on account of advance had been specifically excluded for purpose of awarding interest under s. 244(1A) of Act. ld. counsel for assessee, on other hand, kly supported order of CIT (A) and drew our attention to his paper-book wherein he had appended various details, such as written arguments before CIT (A) as well as details regarding this claim on account of interest under s. 214/244(1A) of Act for both years. We after hearing rival contentions and also going through record, find that assessee's claim is partly for interest under s. 214 and partly for interest under s. 244(1A). Although there is no mention of interest under s. 214 in orders of ITO as well as in grounds of appeal before CIT (A), we do observe that CIT (A) has considered matter under both these sections. As there is no objection on part of Department, we proceed to decide matter accordingly. It is quite apparent from order of CIT (A) that he has placed k reliance on three decisions cited before him including one of Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported in (1981) 130 ITR 928 (Del) (supra). We however find that this decision has been dissented from by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Bardolia Textile Mills (supra). following observations of their Lordships are relevant (at page 42): "The facts in National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. vs. Union of India (1981) 130 ITR 928 (Del) decided by Delhi High Court are more or less similar to facts here. It was decision of AAC consequent on which ITO passed revised assessment order that enabled petitioner in that case to refund of Rs. 8,82,586 that being excess amount paid as advance-tax. assessee claimed interest on it partly under s. 214 and partly under s. 244. It was that assessee's case that till revised assessment order of ITO passed on 2nd Sept., 1977, interest was due under s. 214 while subsequent interest would be due under s. 244 to extent permitted by that section. Unable to get relief from Department, assessee moved High Court in writ petition and High Court, while discountenancing claim for interest under s. 214 for whole amount, gave relief to petitioner holding that s. 244(1A) enabled petitioner to get interest from date on which such excess was paid to date on which refund is granted. In coming to this conclusion, it examined question whether s. 214 would apply and further examined question that if s. 214 would not apply, whether s. 244(1A) r/w s. 214(2) could give relief to petitioner. It is evident that view taken by Delhi High Court does not accord with view taken by us here". And again at page 422 it observed as under: "Of course, we do not, with great respect, agree with Delhi High Court that s. 244 (1A) must be interpreted on principle of equity and "equality" as entitling payment of interest even on advance-tax, since advance tax would become regular tax on assessment by virtue of s. 219 of IT Act. learned Judges are conscious of fact that this would be putting strain on language of s. 244 (1A). We have discussed in this judgment earlier that s. 244(1A) covers entirely different field in that it only refers to payment of interest on tax made pursuant to assessment order and not tax paid as advance tax. Sec. 214 and 244 (1A) are, as it is, complementary to each other and those sections are to be understood as such." We are bound by aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court (supra) which has not agreed with decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and which decision has weighed with ld. CIT (A) in coming to conclusion that he did. Their Lordships observed as under: "Section 244(1A) does not apply to amounts paid as advance tax. In terms that sub-section refers only to amounts paid by assessee after 31st March, 1975 in pursuance of any order of assessment or penalty. Advance tax paid is not amount paid in pursuance of any order of assessment or penalty. That will have to be taken care of independent of s. 244(1A). Therefore, situation not only is not anomalous but in way indicates that interest payable under s. 214(1) is not upto date of first assessment, but upto date of revised assessment. Section 214(1) and s. 244 operate in different fields and s. 244 is not determinative of construction to be placed on s. 214(1)". In view of legal position laid down in Bardolia's case (supra), we do hold that assessee is not entitled for interest under s. 244(1A) but, on other hand we also hold that payment of interest under s. 214 is to be regulated in accordance with same judgment. ITO is directed to do so. As regards question of interest under s. 244(1A) or s. 214 on tax payment under s. 140A, we hold that grant of such interest would not arise in view of our decision as regards interest on advance-tax payments. As result, appeals of Revenue are allowed subject to our direction in respect of interest under s. 214 of Act. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. GUJARAT STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION LTD.