Judgment :- N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the "Act", has referred the following question of law, for our consideration "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the issue relating to the grant of interest under section 214 cannot be entertained even though an appeal was filed contesting various additions apart from the denial of interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act ?" The assessee is a company. The assessee, in the course of assessment proceedings for assessment year 1980-81 claimed interest before the Income-tax Officer under section 214 of the Act. The Income tax Officer did not grant the interest on the ground that a sum of Rs. 25.8 lakhs paid by the assessee was not an advance tax, but an ad hoc payment and, hence, he did not allow any interest under section 214 of the Act, even though there was a refund of a sum of Rs. 4, 90, 994. There were certain other disallowances and additions in the order of assessment The assessee challenged the order of assessment disputing the deduction of the value of subsidy received from SIPCOT, from the actual cost under section 43(1) of the Act and along with some other objections, against the order of assessment, it also raised a question that the assessee was entitled to interest under section 214 of the Act. In other words, the assessee filed an appeal against the order of assessment before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the assessee was entitled to interest under section 214 of the Act, on the basis of the decision of this court in CIT v. T. T. Investments and Trades Pvt. Ltd. 1984 (148) ITR 547, and partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assesseeThe Department preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and contended that against the order of the refusal to grant interest under section 214 of the Act, the appeal preferred by the assessee was not maintainable in law. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the Department following its earlier order and held that no appeal would be entertained against the order of refusal to grant interest under section 214 of the Act On an application filed by the assessee, the Tribunal had referred the question of law referred to us as above Mr. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by a decision of this court in Triplicane Urban Co-operative Society Ltd. v. CIT 1979 Indlaw MAD 115 and a decision of the Supreme Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1986 Indlaw SC 166 Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned counsel for the Revenue, has submitted that he did not seriously dispute the position of law submitted by learned counsel for the assessee We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel. This court in Triplicane Urban Co-operative Society Ltd. v. CIT 1979 Indlaw MAD 115, has taken the view that the appeal would lie against an order refusing to grant interest on the refund due to the assessee under section 214 of the Act, provided, the assessee had challenged the order of assessment, but the assessee could not challenge the refusal to grant interest alone, but if an assessee has filed an appeal against the order of assessment, it is open to him to challenge the order refusing to grant interest. The following passage extracted herein is relevant for the purpose of the case "These two decisions came to be considered in T. C. No. 378 of 1975 (CIT v. City Palayacot Co.) dated July 6, 1979--- 1979 Indlaw MAD 193. After referring to both these cases, it was pointed outThere is no inconsistency between the two decisions. This aspect as to whether the legality of the levy of penal interest could be challenged in an appeal against the assessment on other aspects had not to be considered in the earlier decision.' The view taken in the last-mentioned case was that so long as the assessee had some grievance regarding the assessment, he could include his objection to the levy of interest in the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but an appeal will not, however, lie only against the levy of interest simpliciter. The same principle would hold good even with reference to the claim of interest by the assessee on the refund due to him." The Supreme Court also had an occasion to consider the question whether an appeal would lie against an order levying interest under section 214 of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the levy of interest is a part of the process of assessment and it is open to the assessee to dispute the levy in appeal, provided, he limits himself to the ground that he is not liable to the levy at all. The above two decisions, viz., the decision of this court as well as the decision of the Supreme Court make it clear that it is open to the assessee to challenge the order of the Income-tax Officer refusing to grant interest under section 214 of the Act, provided he has challenged the order of assessment. It is no doubt true that no appeal would lie against an order refusing to grant interest simpliciter, but, when the entire assessment is challenged before the Assistant Commissioner it is open to the assessee to challenge the order of the Income-tax Officer refusing to grant interest In view of the earlier decision of this court in Triplicane Urban Co-operative Society Ltd. v. CIT 1979 Indlaw MAD 115, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1986 Indlaw SC 166, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the appeal will not be entertained against an order refusing to grant interest under section 214 of the Act. We hold that the appeal filed by the assessee was competent before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as the assessee has challenged not only refusal of interest, but also the entire assessment as such. Since the Tribunal has not considered the matter on the merits of the case, the Tribunal is directed to consider the sameAccordingly, we answer the question of law in the negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.