These three second appeals are directed against common order dated 5-10-1984 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi, in relation to three orders all dated 16-2-1984 passed by ITO under section 154 of Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') rejected assessee's request to grant interest under section 243 of Act in respect of belated payment of refund in respect of t h e assessment year 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81. After assessments were completed at loss figure for first year, nil income for second year in respect of business of taxturing/crimping and sale or art silk yarn vide assessment order dated 5-8-1981, 18-3-1982 and 22-3-1983, resoectively, assessment vide its three applications all dated 28-5-1983 filed under section 154 pointed out that credit for tax deducted at source amounting to Rs. 5,423 Rs. 34,419 and Rs. 37,742 had not been given, which may done and refund issued. Getting no respond, on 6-2-1984 assessee addressed common application captioned under sections 154 and 243 requesting for refund along with interest. 2. ITO passed identical orders on 16-2-1984 in which assessee's plea of not giving credit for TDS was accepted and refunds were ordered to be issued. About interest under section 243 , ITO disposed of contention by simply saying that it was not allowable. 3. Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed appeals in limine as not maintaninable by observing that against orders refusing to pay interest there could be no appeal. He, however, also held in paragraph 3 that issue involved was controversial and there was no question of section 154 being applicable in such cases. 4. For appellant Shri P. N. Monga, advocate appeared and we were assisted by Mrs. Archana Ranjan, senior department representative for revenue. 5. Before proceedings further we like to bring in focus section 243 as also provision of section 246(1) (f) of Act, which are relevant for purpose of adjudicating present appeals: "243(1) If Income-tax Officer does not grant refund, - (a) in any case where total income of assessee does not consist solely of income from interest on securities or dividends, within three months from end of month in which total income is determined under this Act, and (b) in any other case, within three months from end of month in which claim for refund is made under this Chapter. Central Government shall pay assessee simple interest at twelve p e r cent per annum on amount directed to be refunded from date immediately following expiry of period of three months aforesaid to date of order granting refund. Explanation: If delay in granting refund within period of three months aforesaid is attributable to assessee, whether wholly or in part, period of delay attributable to him shall be excluded from period for which interest is payable. (2) where any question arises as to period to be excluded for purposes of calculation of interest under provisions of this section, such question shall be determined by Commissioner whose decision shall be final." "246(1) Subject to provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of following order of Income-tax Officer may appeal to Appellate Assistant Commissioner against such order - (a) to (e) ** ** ** (f) order under section 154 or section 155 having effect of enhancing assessment or reducing refund or order refusing to allow claim made by assessee under either of said sections . There can be no dispute in present case that interest was payable under section 243 , there being categorical acceptance by assessing officer t h t mistake of not giving credit for tax deducted at source was in assessments and that original TDS certificates were on record. There also cannot be any controversy that order under section 154 refusing to allow refund claim, or for that reason any claim is appealable, as provided under clause (f) of section 246(1). Further, it is accepted position that ITO passed orders accepting that there were mistakes apparent from record but assessee's request for interest under section 243 came to be rejected without any reason being given. 7. question, therefore, which arises in present appeals is as to whether assessee rightly acted under section 154 or there could be any controversy in that regard. To us, plain reading of clause (f) is enough to hold that assessee could ask for rectification for refund and related interest under section 154 and that is what precisely happened in present case. 8. If we are to accept Commissioner (Appeals) approach and view taken by ITO under section 154 , we must also presume that notwithstanding t h e provision of sections 243 and 246(1) (f) legislature intended that rectification request would result to detriment of taxpayer in sense that he should be deprived of right of appeal by resorting to rectification proceeding if particular order is not made in original assessment, presumption which we are not prepared to make. In first place while framing assessments ITO did not give credit for TDS and when mistake was pointed out, he did not even think it fit to analyse as to how request for interest on refund was untenable and not correct. learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not correct in equating taxpayer's agitation against charging of interest under sections 139(8) and 217 of Act with his right to claim refund, from which right claim of interest flows under section 243 in view of specific provisions of section 246 and clause (f) noted above. 9. Therefore, reversing Commissioner (Appeals) order and holding that ITO wrongly declined assessee's claim we direct that necessary interest under section 243 be computed and allowed to appellant. statistical working we leave it to ITO. 10. Since permission to withdraw ground No. 1 in each of three appeals was granted to assessee's advocate said grounds accordingly stand dismissed. 11. assessee's appeals are treated as partly allowed. *** KAVITA CRIMPING & PROCESSING INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. v. INCOME TAX OFFICER