This appeal by assessee is directed against order of CIT(A) dt. 22nd March, 2007 for asst. yr. 1997-98. Grounds of appeal read as under: "The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that AO w s justified in charging interest under s. 220(2) brushing aside appellant's submissions made before me to effect that appellant is not liable to charge of interest under s. 220(2) of IT Act. That learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding AO's action in treating appellant to be in default and liable to charge of interest under s. 220(2) ignoring fact that demand raised by AO pursuant to order under s. 143(3) dt. 29th March, 2000 was vacated by learned CIT(A) vide his appellate order dt. 20 th May, 2000 and there remained no outstanding demand prior to passing of consequential order under s. 254A in unilateral manner, to give effect to Tribunal's order in appeal preferred by Revenue. That learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that order passed under s. 154 is speaking order and gives out reasons, which, even if debatable and there is certainly not any mistake apparent from record. That appellant reserves its right to add, amend, modify any ground before final adjudication of appeal." return of income in present case was filed at sum of Rs. 37,32,858 plus agricultural income of Rs. 1,85,806 on 27th June,1997. tax including interest was calculated by assessee to be sum of Rs. 14,82,890 against which prepaid taxes were Rs. 14,99,821 this fact is mentioned in statement of facts filed before CIT(A). Thus, leaving excess payment of sum of Rs. 16,93 I which was claimed as refund by assessee. Assessment under s. 143(3) was made on 29th March, 2000 on income of Rs. 5,25,96,711 and agricultural income of Rs. 1,76,131. assessment order and demand notice was served on assessee on 31st March, 2004. assessee did not make payment of tax as per demand notice issued under s. 156 of IT Act, 1961 (Act) which was required to be paid by 30th April, 2000. However, against that assessment, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) on 19th April, 2000 and assessee also submitted stay application to AO under s. 220(6). Simultaneously, stay application was also filed before CIT(A) for grant of stay. AO did not communicate any decision on stay application furnished under s. 220(6). However, CIT(A) vide his order dt. 15th May, 2000 had granted stay till disposal of appeal by him and he also directed AO not to press payment of demand and also not to take any coercive measure to recover demand till disposal of appeal by him. On 20th May, 2000 learned CIT(A) disposed of appeal and deleted major additions, which resulted in nil demand. Against said order of CIT(A) Revenue had filed appeal which is decided by Tribunal on 30th Nov., 2004 by which addition made by AO on account of capital gain was restored which was sum of Rs. 4,77,14,279. AO has passed impugned order giving effect to said order of Tribunal in which income has been determined at sum of Rs. 5,14,56,012 plus Rs. 1,85,806 agricultural income and demand of Rs. 2,69,79,782 has been raised which includes sum of Rs. 1,11,55,850 as interest levied under s. 220(2) for period from May 2000 to January, 2005. Against such order of AO which has been passed for giving effect to said order of Tribunal dt. 30th Nov., 2004, grievance of assessee is against levy of interest under s. 220(2). As per claim of assessee such levy of interest is not permissible as for said period assessee cannot be treated to be in default so as to entail levy of such interest. On basis of facts that: (i) stay application was pending with AO; (it) stay was granted by CIT(A) and (iii) deletion of entire addition by CIT(A), it was contended that after order of CIT(A) in quantum appeal, nothing was found due against assessee and demand against assessee was revived only after order passed by Tribunal, therefore, assessee cannot be charged with interest levied under s. 220(2). To contest levy of interest, assessee had filed appeal before CIT(A) and simultaneously application was also filed before AO under s. 154. application filed by assessee against levy of interest is rejected by AO as according to him, as per Boards Circular No. 334 dt. 3rd April, 1982 in case assessment order passed by AO is set aside by one appellate authority, but on further appeal order setting aside is reversed by second appellate authority, demands get finally determined and interest under s. 220(2) is to be computed with reference to due date reckoned from original payment notice with reference to tax finally determined. Thus, levy on interest was upheld by AO. CIT(A) rejected appeal of assessee on ground that appeal against quashing of interest under s. 220(2) is not maintain- able as order passed under s. 220(2) is not applicable as per s. 246A. Against such order of CIT(A) assessee had preferred appeal before Tribunal which was decided vide order dt. 9th Feb., 2007 in which it was held that appeal of assessee was maintainable and CIT(A) was directed to pass order on merits. It is in pursuance of said directions of Tribunal impugned order has been passed by CIT(A). In appeal it was contention of assessee that AO's reliance on circular is misplaced as said circular is not binding on appellate authorities. It was contended that Circular of CBDT cannot overwrite, modify or amend provisions of Act. It was contended that levy of interest under s. 220(2) in unilateral manner without issuing notice under s. 154(3) was not tenable in law. Rejecting contentions of assessee it is held by CIT(A) that there was no infirmity in order passed by AO under s. 154 entailing levy of interest under s. 220(2) and on merits it is held by CIT(A) that in view of following decisions charging of interest was mandatory and same should be calculated from date of original notice of demand: (i) CIT vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & ors. (2001) 171 CTR (SC) 1: (2001) 252 ITR 1 (SC); (ii) Vikrant Tyres Ltd. vs. First ITO (2001) 166 CTR (SC) 1: (2001) 247 ITR 821 (SC) (iii) AOP of Sanjaybhai R. Patel vs. AO (2004) 187 CTR (Guj) 583: (2004) 267 ITR 129 (Guj.) (iv) Ganshyamdas Jatia vs. ITO (1973) 87 ITR 683 (Cal) (v) J. Jailalitha vs. CIT(2000) 244 ITR 744 (Mad) (vi) Rajam Pictures Circuit vs. CIT (1999) 156 CTR (Mad) 392: (2000) 241 ITR 735 (Mad.) (vii) K. Venugopalan Nambiar vs. Asstt. CIT (1998) 145 CTR (Ker) 152: (1998) 231 ITR 607 (Ker) (viii) Super Spinning Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 164 CTR (Mad) 567: (2000) 244 ITR 814 (Mad) (ix) P. Duli Chand (1998) 148 CTR 352 (Mad). In this manner CIT(A) has upheld levy of interest under s. 220(2). learned Authorised Representative after narrating sequence of events pleaded that no demand existed against assessee for period from 16th May, 2000 to 4th Jan., 2005. Therefore, levy of interest under s. 220(2) is contrary to law. He pleaded that Circular referred to by AO gives view of Department and taxing provisions have to be construed regardless of views expressed in Circular. It was pointed out that assessee had presented appeal under s. 246A and had applied for grant of stay of demand. AO was legally bound to dispose of application of assessee and inaction on part of AO is equivalent to deemed stay of demand without any condition. It was contended that even CIT(A) did not impose any condition while granting stay. Thus, it was pleaded that assessee cannot be treated to be in default, at least for period from 1st April, 2000 (after expiry of 30 days from service of notice of demand on 31st March, 2000) to 15th May, 2000 (when stay was granted by CIT(A)) and, thus, assessee for that period cannot be treated to be assessee in default. demand remained unenforceable and, thus, no interest could be charged for that period. Reference was made to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vikrant Tyres Ltd. (supra) to contend that where assessee has deposited entire demand raised in demand notice and went in appeal and appellate authority decides matter in favour of assessee, amount paid was refunded, but after appeal, assessment order was restored, assessee could not be charged interest under s. 220(2). Thus, it was pleaded by learned Authorised Representative that charging of interest under s. 220(2) should be deleted for period from grant of stay by CIT(A) till order passed by AO dt. 4th Jan., 2005 to give effect to order of Tribunal as for said period no demand was outstanding against assessee. It was pleaded that interest at best could be charged for period 1st April, 2000 (after expiry of 30 days from service of notice of demand on 31st March, 2000) to 15th May, 2000, day on which stay was granted by learned CIT(A) as assessee cannot be treated to be assessee in default for any other period and this plea of assessee is alternative plea. Thus, it was submitted that interest levied under s. 220(2) should be deleted or in alternative be reduced accordingly. On other hand it was pleaded by learned Departmental Representative that levy of interest under s. 220(2) is mandatory and automatic. He contended that if assessee fails to pay demand by date mentioned in notice of demand, such failure will attract levy of interest and it cannot be reduced or waived except in circumstances prescribed under s. 220 itself. He referred to provisions of sub-s. (2A) to s. 220 which is exception to sub-s. (2) wherein Chief CIT or CIT has been authorized to reduce or waive amount of interest paid or payable if said authority is satisfied that payment of interest has caused or would cause genuine hardship to assessee and also that default in payment of outstanding demand on which interest is paid or payable was due to circumstances beyond control of assessee and assessee had co-operated in inquiry relating to assessment or in proceedings for recovery of any amount due from him. learned Departmental Representative pleaded that though power is vested with AO to extend due date of payment under sub-s. (3) of s. 220, but it is in sole discretion of AO to extend time of payment or to allow payment by instalments subject of AO to extend time of payment or to allow payment by instalments subject to conditions as he may think fit in circumstances of case. He contended that even sub-s. (3) does not give power to AO to reduce or to waive or not to charge interest as levied under sub-s. (2) of s. 220 as according to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (supra), levy of interest is mandatory as word used in statute is 'shall'. He contended that according to subs. (4) of s. 220, if assessee fails to pay amount specified in notice of demand within time or within time as extended by AO under sub-s. (3), then assessee shall be deemed to be assessee in default. He contended that sub-s. (4) of s. 220 only prescribe that in what circumstances assessee can be treated to be assessee in default, however, for levy of interest under sub-s. (2), it is not condition precedent that whether assessee is treated to be assessee in default or not. Learned Departmental Representative contended that sub-s. (5) also prescribes that if any instalment is granted by AO under sub-s. (3) and there i s default in making payment according to said instalments then also assessee will be treated to be assessee in default as due date for payment of tax shall be due date of instalment. learned Departmental Representative contended that under sub-s. (6) AO has been given discretion for not treating assessee to be in default if appeal has been filed by assessee against order in respect of which demand is outstanding against assessee. Thus, explaining scheme of provisions of s. 220 it was argued by learned Departmental Representative that in case of failure of assessee to pay outstanding demand of IT by date prescribed in notice of demand, that failure will attract levy of interest under sub-s. (2) which is mandatory and automatic and even filing of application by assessee before AO or filing of appeal before CIT(A) cannot vitiate such levy of interest as long as assessee has committed default of not paying sum specified in notice of demand on or before due date. Further reliance was placed by learned Departmental Representative on following decisions: (i) Super Spinning Mills Ltd. 's case (supra) wherein it has been held that in case CIT(A) allowed claim of assessee, but Tribunal disallowed it, original notice of demand continue to be valid and operative in view of s. 3 of Taxation Laws (continuation and validation of recovery proceedings) Act, 1964 and Revenue authorities were justified in claiming interest under s. 220(2) of IT Act, 1961. (ii) Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India (1991) 188 ITR 227 (Del) wherein it was held that when Tribunal restored original assessment order of AO by setting aside order of CIT (A), interest was chargeable under s. 220(2) in respect of non-payment of tax as per ITO's order and interest under s. 220(2) is not penal in nature. Thus learned Departmental Representative pleaded that CIT(A) was right in upholding levy of interest which is in accordance with scheme of provisions of s. 220 as well as decisions relied upon by him. We have carefully considered rival submissions in light of material placed before us. One of reasons given by AO for justifying levy of interest under s. 220(2) and rejecting application filed by assessee under s. 154 is that levy of interest under s. 220(2) is in accordance with Circular No. 334 dt. 3rd April, 1982. text of such circular is as under: "2. These issues were comprehensively examined in consultation with Ministry of Law and Board has been advised: (i) where assessment order is cancelled under s. 146 or cancelled/ set aside by appellate/revisional authority and cancellation/ setting aside becomes final (i.e., it is not varied as result of further appeals/revisions), no interest under s. 220(2) can be charged pursuant to original demand notice. necessary corollary of this position will be that even when assessment is reframed, interest can be charged only after expiry of 35 days from date of service of demand notice pursuant to such fresh assessment order. (ii) where assessment made originally ITO is either varied or even set aside by one appellate authority but on further appeal, original order of ITO is restored either in part or wholly, interest payable under s. 220(2) will be computed with reference to due date reckoned from original demand notice and with reference to tax finally determined. fact that during intervening period, there was no tax payable by assessee under any operative order would make no difference to this position." According to well settled law where issue relates to interpretation of statutory provision and in that respect CBDT has issued circulars, such circulars are administrate instructions and are not binding upon Tribunal or Courts. Therefore, not going by reasons of AO that such levy of interest under s. 220(2) is in accordance with that circular, we will decide chargeability or otherwise of interest as per statutory provisions existing on statute. Now it will be relevant here to reproduce provisions of s. 220: "220.(1) Any amount, otherwise than by way of advance tax, specified as payable in notice of demand under s. 156 shall be paid within thirty days (before 1st April, 1989 - thirty five days) of service of notice at place and to person mentioned in notice: Provided that, where AO has any "reason to believe" that it will be detrimental to revenue if full period of thirty days aforesaid is allowed, he may with previous approval of (Jt. CIT) direct that sum specified in notice of demand shall be paid within such period being period less than period of thirty days aforesaid, as may be specified by him in notice of demand. (2) If amount specified in any notice of demand under s. 156 is not paid within period limited under sub-s. (1) assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at one per cent w.e.f. 8th Sept., 2003 for every month or part of month comprised in period commencing from day immediately following end of period mentioned in sub-s. (1) and ending with day on which amount is paid: Provided that, where as result of order under s. 154, or s. 155, or s. 250 or s. 254, or s. 260, or s. 262, or s. 264 (or order of settlement commission under sub-s. (4) of s. 245(D)), amount on which interest was payable under this section had been reduced, interest shall be reduced accordingly and excess interest paid, if any, shall be refunded." provisions of s. 220(2) had come up for consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vikrant Tyres Ltd.(supra) and it was observed that bare reading of said section clearly indicates that if assessee does not pay amount demanded under notice under s. 156 of Act within time stipulated under sub-s. (1), assessee is liable to pay simple interest at 1 1/2 per cent for every month or part of month comprised in period commencing from day immediately following end of period mentioned in sub-s. (1) and ending with day on which amount is paid and, therefore, condition precedent under said section is that there should be demand notice and there should be default to pay amount so demanded within time stipulated in said notice. Now it has to be seen that on facts of present case that whether there is default of assessee under s. 220(2). Assessment in present case was framed under s. 143(3) at sum of Rs. 5,25,96,711 and demand notice pursuant to said assessment was served on assessee on 31st March, 2000. Period of 30 days from date of service of demand notice expired on 30th April, 2000 and said demand was not paid by assessee till that date. However, assessee had submitted stay application under s. 220(6) on 29th April, 2000 i.e., before due date of making payment. Simultaneously, assessee had submitted appeal against said assessment order on 19th April, 2000 and stay application was also filed with CIT(A) seeking stay of demand till disposal of appeal. AO did not make any order in response to stay application filed by assessee. However, CIT(A) stayed demand on 15th May, 2000 and appeal of assessee was allowed by order of CIT(A) dt. 20th May, 2000 by which entire demand is said to have been deleted. Relying on these facts it has been claimed by Authorized Representative of assessee that interest under s. 220(2) could not be levied as demand was stayed by CIT(A) and after order of CIT(A) there was no demand and same was revived only when Tribunal had revised order of CIT(A) on 30th Nov., 2004. It is submission of learned Authorised Representative that at least for period from date of order of CIT(A) till date of order of Tribunal, interest should not be levied as during that period date of order of Tribunal, interest should not be levied as during that period no demand whatsoever was outstanding against assessee. It is fact that assessee did not make payment of taxes as required to be paid as per demand notice issued by Department under s. 156 in pursuance of assessment framed on 29th March, 2000 and which was served on 31st March, 2000. Filing of stay application with AO or CIT(A) does' not mitigate default of assessee of non-payment of tax according to demand notice issued and served under s. 156. consequence of stay was that for purpose of levy of penalty under s. 221 assessee may not be considered to be assessee in default which is condition precedent for holding assessee liable for penalty under s. 221. So as it relates to levy of interest under s. 220(2), grant of stay has no role to play. nature of interest to be levied under s. 220(2) is compensatory in nature and is also mandatory as word used in section is 'shall' which has been interpreted by Hon'ble Supreme Court to make levy mandatory and reference can be made to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & ors.(supra). It has been contention of learned Authorised Representative that no interest should be levied for period starting from order of CIT(A) till order of Tribunal and for that purpose reliance has been placed on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vikrant Tyres Ltd.(supra). It is observed that if ratio of that case is applied, then no such relief can be granted to assessee. In case of Vikrant Tyres Ltd.(supra). levy of interest was held invalid for reason that assessee had made payment of taxes within time stipulated in demand notice. However, as pointed out earlier, in present case no payment has been made by assessee in response to demand notice. deletion of demand by CIT(A) cannot be considered to be equivalent to payment according to demand notice. payment made in accordance with demand notice will only absolve assessee from liability of interest under s. 220(2). In abovementioned case of Vikrant Tyres Ltd.(supra) it was further observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that s. 3 of Validation Act, could not be relied upon to construe authority of Revenue to demand interest under s. 220 of Act as said section was enacted to cope up with different fact situation and that section only revives old demand notice which had never been satisfied by assessee and which notice got quashed during some stage of challenge and finally said quashed notice gets restored by order of higher forum. It was observed that in such situation s. 3 of Validation Act restores original demand notice which was never satisfied by assessee and said section does away with need to issue fresh notice. Beyond that, said section could not be resorted to for reviving demand notice which is already fully satisfied. For proper understanding of issue, it will be relevant to state objects and reasons for enacting Validation Act, 1964: "8. Parliament has enacted Validation Act, and statement of objects and reasons reads thus: Recently in case of ITO & Anr. vs. Seghu Buchiah Setty (1964) 52 ITR 538 (SC), Supreme Court had occasion to consider scope of ss. 29 and 4 5 of Indian IT Act, 1922, and it has been held in that case that when demand levied by ITO as result of assessment is varied by appellate or revising authority, original order or ITO merges into order of such authority and, consequently, in all cases of order varying assessment, original order goes and all steps already taken for recovery of demand become null and void and that in such cases it is duty of ITO to issue fresh notice of demand in prescribed form and serve it upon assessee. Though judgment is with reference to Indian IT Act, 1922, which has been repealed but kept alive only for some limited purposes, same interpretation may hold good with respect to corresponding provisions in IT Act, 1961 and in other Acts relating to imposition of direct taxes. above decision of Supreme Court will create difficulties in collection of IT and other direct taxes. number of assessments involved in arrear demands of direct taxes is nearly Rs. 6 lakhs and recovery certificates have been issued to Collectors or TROs in approximately 2,25,000 cases and Revenue involved comes to Rs. 157 crores. In view of above decision of Supreme Court, in most of these cases, fresh notices of demand may have to be served upon assessees and assessees will have to be allowed further period for paying tax. It will be only after expiry of said period that fresh proceedings for recovery can be started. result would be that recalcitrant assessees would get sufficient time to withdraw their funds or alienate their properties with view to defeating claims of revenue. In order to overcome these difficulties, it is proposed to provide that in such cases, it shall not be necessary to take proceedings afresh or to serve fresh notices of demand except that in case of enhancement of assessment, another notice of demand shall be served upon assessee with respect to amount by which assessment has been enhanced. Opportunity has also been taken to provide for certain matters which are ancillary to above proposal." said Validation Act received assent of President on 12th May, 1964 and was published in Gazette of India on same date. Now it will be relevant to reproduce relevant sections of Validation Act: assessee, taxing authority and TRO have been defined in ss. 2(a), 2(d) and 2(e) of Validation Act, respectively, in following terms: "2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless context otherwise requires,- (a) 'assessee', in relation to- (i) Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 (15 of 1940), or Business Profits Tax Act, 1947 (21 of 1947), means person by whom tax or any other sum is payable under that Act; (ii) ED Act, 1953 (34 of 1953) means person accountable or accountable person as defined in that Act; (iii) any other Scheduled Act means assessee as defined in that Act; (d) 'Taxing authority', in relation to any Scheduled Act means officer (by whatever name called) empowered to serve upon assessee notice of demand in respect of any Government dues under that Act; (e) 'TRO', in relation to any Scheduled Act, means TRO as defined in that Act and where there is no such definition, means officer (by whatever name called) to whom certificate for recovery of arrears of Government dues may be issued under that Act." Sec. 3 of Validation Act reads thus: "3. Continuation and validation of certain proceedings.-(1) Where any notice of demand in respect of any Government dues is served upon assessee by taxing authority under any Scheduled Act, and any appeal or other proceedings is filed or taken in respect of such Government dues, then,- ' (a) where such Government dues are enhanced in such appeal or proceeding, taxing authority shall serve upon assessee another notice of demand only in respect of amount by which such Government dues are enhanced and any proceedings in relation to such Government dues as are covered by notice or notices of demand served upon him before disposal of such appeal or proceeding may, without service of any fresh notice of demand, be continued from stage at which such proceedings stood immediately before such disposal; (b) where such Government dues are reduced in such appeal or proceeding,- (i) it shall not be necessary for taxing authority to serve upon assessee fresh notice of demand; (ii) taxing authority shall give intimation of fact of such reduction to assessee, and where certificate has been issued to TRO for recovery of such amount, also to that officer; (iii) any proceedings initiated on basis of notice or notices of demand served upon assessee before disposal of such appeal or proceeding may be continued in relation to amount so reduced from stage at which such proceedings stood immediately before such disposal; (c) no proceedings in relation to such Government dues (including imposition of penalty or charging of interest) shall be levied by reason only that no fresh notice of demand was served upon assessee after disposal of such appeal or proceeding or that such Government dues have been enhanced or reduced in such appeal or proceeding: Provided that if as result of any final order such Government dues (other than annuity deposit) have been reduced and penalty imposed on assessee for default in payment thereof exceeds amount so reduced, excess shall not be recovered and if it has already been recovered, it shall be refunded to assessee on application made by him to taxing authority within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act: Provided further that if amount of penalty imposed on assessee for failure to make any annuity deposit exceeds one-half of amount of annuity deposit required to be made as result of such order, excess shall not be recovered, and if it has already been recovered, shall be refunded to assessee on application made by him to taxing authority within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act: Provided further that where any Government dues are reduced in such appeal or proceeding and assessee is entitled to any refund thereof, such refund shall be made in accordance with provisions of that Act. (2) For removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no fresh notice of demand shall be necessary in any case where amount of Government dues is not varied as result of any order passed in any appeal or other proceeding under any Scheduled Act. (3) provisions of this section shall have effect notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or other authority." above provisions of Validation Act have been interpreted and explained by their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vikrant Tyres Ltd.(supra) and for sake of convenience relevant observations from said decision are reproduced below: "9. High Court also fell in error in relying on s. 3 of Validation Act to construe s. 220(2) in manner in which it has done in impugned judgment. Sec. 3 of Validation Act, in our opinion, cannot be relied upon to construe authority of Revenue to demand interest under s. 220 of Act. said section was enacted to cope up with different fact-situation. That section only reviews, old demand notice which had never been satisfied by assessee and which notice got quashed during some stage of challenge and finally said quashed notice gets restored by order of higher forum. In such situation, s. 3 of Validation Act restores original demand notice which was never satisfied by assessee and said section does away with need to issue fresh notice. Beyond that, that section cannot be resorted to for reviving demand notice which is already fully satisfied." (emphasis supplied) Keeping in view above observations of their Lordships it has to be held that if assessee has not satisfied original demand notice, then, according to s. 3 of Validation Act, original demand notice will be restored. In case of Seghu Buchiah Setty(supra) while interpreting provisions of ss. 29 and 45 of Indian IT Act, 1922 it was held that in case where demand levied by AO was varied by appellate or revising authority, original order of ITO merges into order of such authority, and, consequently, in all cases of order varying assessment, original order goes and all steps already taken for recovery of demnnd become null and void and that in such cases it is duty of ITO to issue fresh notice of demand in prescribed format and serve it upon assessee. To overcome such difficulty s. 3 of Validation Act, 1964 was enacted. If facts of present case are considered in light of Validation Act (the relevant provisions of which are reproduced in above part of this order) as interpreted by their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforementioned decision of Vikrant Tyres Ltd.'s case (supra), then conclusion is that assessee is liable for levy of interest under s. 220(2) from due date as prescribed in demand notice issued in pursuance of assessment order passed under s. 143(3) of IT Act, 1961 till date of actual payment. In present case, assessee has never satisfied demand notice issued in pursuance of regular assessment, therefore, provisions of Validation Act will be applicable and original demand notice is considered to be revived. In view of above discussion, we find no infirmity in order of CIT(A) vide which it has been held that assessee is liable for interest under s. 220(2) from due date as prescribed in demand notice issued in pursuance of regular assessment till date of actual payment. We decline to interfere and appeal filed by assessee is dismissed. In result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed. *** RAJAT LAL v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX