Judgment :- P.A. Mohammed, J. The question referred to us for decision in this case is as follows: "Whether the Tribunal is bound to consider all the provisions of S.214 including S.214(1A) when the assessee did not refer to S.214(1A) in the course of the argument and the case proceeded only on the provisions of S.214(1) of the IT. Act?" This Income Tax Reference Case is coming up for decision before us at the instance of the assessee, a company engaged in the business of manufacture of chemicals. The original assessment for the assessment year 1983-84 was completed on 27.3.1986 fixing the total income of Rs. 19,94,620/- and demanding a total sum of Rs. 11,18,460/- towards income tax interest etc. On appeal, the C.I.T. (Appeals) vide the order dated 27.2.1987 granted certain reliefs. Consequently the advance tax paid by the assessee was found to be in excess of the tax demand which resulted in refund. Consequently, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-s.(1) of S.214 increased and the assessee became entitled to interest in terms of S.214 (1 a) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer did not allow any interest under S.214(1A). On appeal, C.I.T. (Appeals) directed the assessing Officer to grant interest under S.214. However, the revenue went up in appeal. But the Tribunal following the Full Bench decision of this Court in C.I.T. v. G.B. Transports (1985) 155 ITR 548) and the decision of. the Bombay High Court in C.I.T. v. Carona Sahu C. Ltd. (1984) 146 KTR 452) held that the interest under S.214 is payable only upto the date of first assessment under S.143 or under S.144, on the amount found to be in excess of the tax demand. 2. Later the assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application before the Tribunal and contended that it had committed a mistake by not referring to the provisions of the sub-s.(1A) of S.214. However, the Tribunal rejected the said petition holding that no reference was made to S.214(IA) in the course of hearing of the revenue's appeal. What was contended by the counsel for the assessee was that it was the duty of the Tribunal to make reference to the provisions contained in S.214(1A) of the Act. In view of the said submission, the Tribunal allowed the reference on the question re-drafted by the Tribunal. That is how the matter is coming before us. 3. What was contended by the counsel for the assessee was that it was the duty of the Tribunal to make reference to the provisions contained in S.214(1A) of the Act. In view of the said submission, the Tribunal allowed the reference on the question re-drafted by the Tribunal. That is how the matter is coming before us. 3. The only question is whether the Tribunal is bound to take note of provision contained in sub-s.(1A) of S.214 and to apply the same while deciding the quantum of interest. The said provision was there in the statute when the question came up for decision before the Tribunal. Even though the assessee did not specifically refer to sub-s.(1A), we cannot say that the Tribunal can ignore the said provision when taking the decision. We are of the view that the Tribunal ought to have considered and referred to the said provision. It is the duty of the Tribunal to consider the law as existed then even though the assessee failed to bring to its notice. The Supreme court in C.I.T. v. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (1986) 160 ITR 920) observed thus: "In the second place, there is a duty cast on the income tax officer to apply the relevant provisions of the Indian Income tax Act for the purpose of determining the true figure of the assessee's taxable income and the consequential tax liability. Merely because the assessee fails to claim the benefit of a set off, it cannot relieve the Income tax Officer of his duty to apply S.24 in an appropriate case". It is difficult for us to say that the principle emerging from the above decision cannot be extended to the cases before the other authorities under the Income Tax Act. We of the view that the above principle can equally be applied to the cases coming before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Also refer the decision of this court in Parekh Brothers v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1984) 150 ITR 105). In the result the question referred to us for decision is answered in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. - A copy of this judgment under the seal of this Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.