Misquotation of refund-interest provision does not defeat substantive entitlement where the claim remains legally admissible.

In an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, the High Court held that merely citing the wrong refund-interest provision did not defeat substantive entitlement where the assessee's claim could be examined under sections 214 and 244. The appellate authority had directed the Assessing Officer to consider whether interest was otherwise admissible, and the Court treated that direction as involving no referable question of law. The application was dismissed, with the principle that a misquoted section alone cannot justify denial of relief if the underlying claim is legally maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a question of law arose from the appellate authority's direction to consider the assessee's claim for interest under sections 214 and 244 despite the original claim having been made under section 244(1A).

Analysis: The dispute concerned the assessee's claim for interest on refund for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. The assessee had originally invoked section 244(1A), but the appellate authority, noting that the wrong provision had been cited, directed the Assessing Officer to consider whether interest was otherwise admissible under sections 214 and 244. The Court held that misquotation of a provision could not by itself justify denial of relief if the assessee was substantively entitled to it, and no question of law arose from the order complained of.

Conclusion: No question of law arose and the application was dismissed.

---