JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by A. M. Sapre J. This is appeal filed by Revenue (Income-tax Department) under section 260A of Income-tax Act, 1961, against order dated May 27, 2003, passed by Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 42/Ind./ 2000. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was justified in deleting addition of Rs. 12,64,851 on account of disallowance of interest, especially when interest-bearing funds were diverted to non-business purpose? 2. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was justified in deleting addition of Rs. 2,60,848 on account of legal and professional expenses for services relating to leasing of gas cylinders, especially when assessee prima facie admitted this transaction to be only paper transaction and did not claim depreciation and also did not offer any lease rent in respect of leasing of gas cylinders? In short, question that arises for consideration in this appeal filed by Revenue is: whether Tribunal was justified in holding that assessee is entitled to get benefit of Rs. 12,64,851 by way of interest accrued on particular transaction which Assessing Officer had declined to grant to assessee by adding said amount in their total income in assessment year 1996-97. assessee is limited company engaged in business of manufacture of resins and fatty acid. During assessment year in question, it was noticed that assessee had paid amount of Rs. 1,04,33,920 to one M. M. Industries for purchase of industrial gas cylinders. It was noticed that sum of Rs. 97,29,630 was borrowed fund and assessee had not shown any lease rent from such lease transaction. In this way Assessing Officer disallowed interest of Rs. 12,64,851. It is this transaction whose legality and genuineness was doubted by Assessing Officer. In opinion of Assessing Officer, transaction in question was not genuine and bona fide one and being bogus in nature, sum of Rs. 12,64,851 was disallowed towards bank interest on account of interestfree advance to M. M. Industries. This finding of Assessing Officer was challenged by assessee in appeal to Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld finding of Assessing Officer and dismissed appeal. In further appeal by assessee to Tribunal, same was allowed by Tribunal. It was held on facts that transaction in question entered into by assessee with M/s. M. M. Industries is genuine and proper. It was further held that once transaction in question is held to be genuine, same has got to be given effect to. As consequence, disallowance of interest to bank to extent of Rs. 12,64,851 paid by assessee under section 36(1)(iii) ibid was set aside and instead, assessee was allowed to claim benefit of section 36(1)(iii) for claiming deduction towards payment of interest in respect of capital borrowed for purpose of business. It is against this finding of Tribunal, Revenue has come up in appeal. Heard Shri R. L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Ku. V. Mandlik, learned counsel for appellant and Shri R. K. Sarda, learned counsel for respondent. Having heard learned counsel for appellant and having perused record of case, we are inclined to dismiss appeal and uphold finding of Tribunal recorded on issue in question. This is how Tribunal dealt with issue in question in paragraph 15 of impugned order: We have considered rival submissions carefully and have gone through relevant documents placed on record. We find force in contention of learned authorised representative. As has been discussed above in I. T. A. No. 235/Ind./1998, that Tribunal had found that assessee all along treated transaction regarding purchase and lease of gas cylinders to be genuine and had reasonable basis for entertaining such plea. This fact becomes further clear from findings of Assessing Officer that Mega Gases (P.) Ltd. has entered into this type of lease transaction with 10 companies, some of which belong to multinational companies. In this background, we think assessee might have been cheated by Mega Gases (P.) Ltd. in collusion with M/s. M. M. Industries. Though this fact has not been proved beyond doubt because assessee was never given any opportunity to cross-examine witnesses recorded by Revenue. We also find that Assessing Officer has not proved any nexus between borrowed funds and payments made to M/s. M. M. Industries. In these circumstances, we set aside order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and delete this addition. Mere perusal of aforesaid paragraph would indicate that Tribunal went into factual aspects of case and having examined factual documents brought on record at instance of assessee in support of bona fides of transactions in question, recorded finding of genuineness of transaction. In other words, Tribunal was satisfied on facts that transaction in question is not bogus but genuine. It could be entered into in circumstances appearing and there is reason for its entering by assessee for their business with company. In our opinion, aforesaid finding being finding of fact, this court cannot upset such finding of fact in this appeal filed under section 260A ibid. As matter of fact, question whether particular transaction entered into by assessee with particular person is essentially question of fact and, therefore, once any finding on either way is recorded by Tribunal then same is not liable to be interfered with by High Court unless error of law as contemplated under section 260A ibid is pointed out. No such error is either pointed out or noticed. In our opinion, thus, appeal really does not involve any substantial question of law within meaning of section 260A ibid. As observed supra, there is no question framed so as to enable this court to examine entire transaction in question de novo on facts. Firstly, it is not legally possible in this appeal. Secondly, no question of law is framed to permit us to do that exercise. Thirdly, no perversity as such is pointed out in impugned finding and, hence, this court cannot interfere in impugned finding of fact recorded by Tribunal. Learned counsel for appellant placing reliance on case as CIT v. Orissa Cement Ltd. [2002] 258 ITR 365 (Delhi) contended that impugned order is liable to be set aside. That case is distinguishable on facts. Once Tribunal upholds genuineness of transaction then in such event benefit of transaction has to be given to assessee. There is no prohibition in law that assessee can never advance amount without charging any interest on advance amount. Every transaction has got to be examined on its terms and conditions entered into between parties and with view to find out whether it is genuine one or not. In this case, Tribunal did record finding that it is genuine. Such finding, as observed supra, is binding on this court. So far as second question of law is concerned, Tribunal decided in favour of assessee because other two main questions referred to above were answered in favour of assessee. Since we have also upheld finding on other two main questions, i.e., one which is subjectmatter of this appeal and other which is subject-matter of I. T. A. No. 91 of 1993 second question framed in this appeal has to be answered against Revenue and in favour of assessee. In other words, once transactions in question are held to be genuine and bona fide, then in such event payment made by assessee towards professional charges has to be held as legal and proper. We, therefore, answer second question in favour of assessee and against appellant (Revenue) in light of other two main questions having been answered against appellant. Accordingly, and in view of foregoing discussion, we are unable to notice any merit in this appeal. As result, appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. *** COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. GOM INDUSTRIES LTD.