SUHAS CHANDRA SEN,J. - (1.) IN this case, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee has a right of appeal under cl. (f) of s. 246 of the Act from the ITO's orders passed under s 155/154 of the Act levying interest under s. 139/215/217/220 of the IT Act, 1961 ?" The short point in this case is whether an appeal lies to the AAC from an order of rectification passed by the ITO. It has been pointed out by the Tribunal that an appeal lies under s. 246(f) of the IT Act. It has been contended on behalf of the Revenue that the ITO not having charged the interest in the original assessment under s. 220 of the Act in the asst. yr. 1961-62, and under ss. 139 and 215 in the asst. yr. 1962-63, could charge them in the rectification orders as there was a mistake apparent on the record.
(2.) THE Tribunal has recorded that the assessee sought to argue (1) that the ITO had no power to charge penal interest which had not originally been charged in the regular assessments, and (2) that it could not be said that there was a mistake apparent from the record with regard to the charging of such interest. The AAC held that there was a mistake apparent from the record and the rectification was justified. He further held that the point about charging of interest was not appealable.
(3.) WE are in agreement with the views expressed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that the order was clearly appealable. Sec. 246(f) is quite specific. The assessee has raised questions about the jurisdiction of the ITO and also the point of limitation. Those points must be decided on merits. The appeal is not against levy of interest simpliciter.;