Judgment :- N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. At the instance of the assessee, the following two questions of law have been referred to us for our consideration for the asst. yr. 1978-79 : "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is not entitled to interest under s. 214 on the refunded amount of Rs. 2, 38, 503 ? 2. Whether the Tribunal is right in observing that the denial of interest under s. 214 is not appealable ?" 2. The issue raised in the first question is whether the assessee is entitled to interest under s. 214 of the IT Act, 1961, on the refunded amount of Rs. 2, 38, 503. The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to such interest on the ground that the assessee had paid the advance tax without any notice from the IT Department and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to interest under s. 214 of the Act. A similar question of law whether the assessee is entitled to claim interest under s. 214 of the Act on the advance tax paid without any notice by the IT Department came up for consideration in Ganapathy Engineering Manufacturers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 1997 (143) CTR(Mad) 150 wherein this Court held that the assessee would be entitled to interest under s. 214 of the Act on the advance tax paid though the amount was paid by the assessee without any notice from the IT Department. We, therefore, hold that the assessee would be entitled to interest under s. 214 of the Act on the advance tax paid though it was paid without any notice from the ITO, provided the advance tax was paid before the expiry of the financial year. We hold that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the assessee was not entitled to interest under s. 214 of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the first question of law referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. 3. The second question relates to the maintainability of the appeal by the assessee. The assessee was not originally granted interest under s. 214 of the Act by the ITO. The assessee made a request to the ITO to rectify the mistake under s. 154(2)(b) of the Act. 3. The second question relates to the maintainability of the appeal by the assessee. The assessee was not originally granted interest under s. 214 of the Act by the ITO. The assessee made a request to the ITO to rectify the mistake under s. 154(2)(b) of the Act. The ITO held that the assessee was not entitled to interest under s. 214 of the Act. In other words, he refused to rectify the order of assessment. The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the ITO holding the order refusing to rectify the mistake. The AAC held that the assessee would be entitled to interest under s. 214 of the Act and there was a mistake apparent on the order of ITO and directed the ITO to look into the matter and grant interest on the advance tax paid. The Tribunal, however, took a view that the assessee was not entitled to maintain an appeal against the order refusing to rectify the mistake. The Tribunal overlooked the fact that the order passed by the ITO was one under s. 154 of the Act and against such an order, an appeal would lie to the CIT(A). The assessee, in the instant case, has not preferred any appeal against an order under s. 214 of the Act, and possibly he could not do so, as there was no order under s. 214 of the Act, but the assessee preferred an appeal against an order passed under s. 154 of the Act refusing to rectify a mistake and the CIT(A), in our view, rightly entertained the appeal and held that the assessee was entitled to interest. We, therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the assessee was perfectly maintainable. 4. Recently, a Bench of this Court (in which one of us was a party) in TC No. 448 of 1983 [reported as CIT vs. T. V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. 1998 (147) CTR(Mad) 342], by judgment dt. 26th November, 1997 held that in similar circumstances the appeal would lie against an order refusing to rectify the mistake. Following the said judgment, we hold that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the assessee was not entitled to maintain an appeal against the order of ITO refusing to rectify the mistake found in the order of assessment. 26th November, 1997 held that in similar circumstances the appeal would lie against an order refusing to rectify the mistake. Following the said judgment, we hold that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the assessee was not entitled to maintain an appeal against the order of ITO refusing to rectify the mistake found in the order of assessment. Accordingly, we answer the second question of law referred to us also in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee is entitled to costs of Rs. 1, 000.