EGBERT SINGH, A.M. appeal by assessee is that CIT(A) failed to appreciate full facts in rejecting claim of assessee for interest under s. 244(1A). At outset, it may be mentioned that appeal is time barred by one day. assessee has filed condonation petition stating that he has registered papers at Kanpur well before limitation period, but delay was due to delay in postal delivery. Having regard to submission made by both sides and facts of case, we are of opinion that delay deserved to be condoned which we hereby do. We shall now come to merits of case. ITO mentioned that assessee filed application under s. 154 for rectification stating that it was entitled to interest on refund as result of order dt. 13th July, 1984 passed under r. 40 and r. 117A waiving interest chargeable from assessee. ITO pointed out that original assessment was revised on 6th Jan., 1984 under s. 251 and assessee was asked to pay Rs.3,949 being outstanding. This demand represented interest under s. 139(8) and 215/217. assessee moved application for waiver of interest and after receipt of IAC's direction, fresh order was passed by ITO. He also pointed out that on account of waiver, assessee became liable to receive refund of Rs. 5,782 and vide his application assessee requested for payment of interest under s. 244 (1A). ITO fixed case of hearing, but there was no compliance. He, therefore, disposed of application of assessee on merits. According to ITO interest under s. 244(1A) of act would arise only o n any refund arising as result of any amount having been paid by assessee after 31st March, 1975 in pursuance of any order of assessment or penalty and such amount having found in appeal or other proceedings to be in excess of amount which assessee was liable to pay as tax or penalty. According to ITO in case of assessee, refund arose not on account of any relief allowed to assessee in appeal or any other proceedings and, therefore, assessee was not entitled to interest particularly when waiver of interest did not mean that assessee was not liable for making these payments, but it means that Government had waived right of charging interest, although assessee was chargeable for this. He also pointed out that assessee remained liable to pay interest and interest waived cannot be equated with amount which was found to be paid in excess in appeal or any other proceedings. In circumstances, ITO came to conclusion that assessee was not entitled to any interest under s. 244 (1A). assessee took up matter to CIT(A) who sustained action of ITO. Hence this appeal. We have heard both sides and have perused orders of authorities below for our consideration. As per requirement of s. 244(1A), interest o n refund would be payable to assessee on conditions prescribed. According to ITO waiver of interest is not order passed in pursuance of any proceedings under Act. It is seen, however, that interest under s. 139(8) were leviable may be waived or reduced, by ITO under that sub-section and for which r. 117A has been prescribed. Similarly charging of interest under s. 215 can be waived or reduced as provided under s. 215(4) which would also apply to interest payable under s. 217 as stipulated by s. 217(2). In our opinion, rules are not independent by themselves, but are part of relevant sections as pointed out above. It is because of these proceedings of charging of interest or reducing or waiving of such interest that claim of assessee for waiver was allowed. In that view of matter, weiver or reduction of interest under above two rules are also other proceedings under IT Act. Accordingly, we hold that assessee is entitled to said interest particularly in view of fact that claim of assessee for interest under s. 244(1A) was on income-tax refund and not on interest waived as could be seen from facts of case. ITO therefore, is directed to allow interest after verification of facts and dates on which refund had been ordered as required by s. 244(1A). In result, appeal by assessee is allowed. *** SHREE RAM MAHADEO PD v. INCOME TAX OFFICER