This is Revenues appeal directed against order of learned CIT(A)- Central - V, Mumbai dated 19-3-2002 for assessment year 1998-99. 2. only grievance of revenue is regarding deleting disallowance of Rs. 33,99,356 made by Assessing Officer for making interest-free advances out of interest bearing borrowed funds. 3. Briefly stated, facts are that it was noted by Assessing Officer that assessee has taken interest-free advances of Rs. 235.40 lakhs from sister concerns and has given interest-free advances to sister concerns amounting to Rs. 423.97 lakhs. Before him, it was contended by assessee t h t no interest bearing borrowed fund was used for giving interest-free advances. It was submitted that against interest-free advances given by assessee of Rs. 423.97 lakhs, it had interest-free funds available to tune of Rs. 767.95 lakhs including Partners Capital and current account balances, interest-free advances from sister concerns and advance against amenities. Assessing Officer rejected this explanation of assessee and disallowed Rs. 33.94 lakhs out of interest expenses being 18 per cent of excess interest-free advances given Rs. 188.57 lakhs. On appeal, learned CIT(A) deleted this disallowance by holding that Assessing Officer has not established nexus between interest bearing borrowed funds and interest-free advances given by assessee. clear finding is given by him that interest-free funds available with assessee is far in excess of interest-free advances given by assessee and on these two basis, he deleted this disallowance and now revenue is in appeal before us. 4. Learned DR of revenue supported assessment order and reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: (a)Sanghvi Swiss Refills (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2003] (Mum.), (b)CIT v. V.I. Baby & Co. [2002] 254 ITR 248 (Ker.), (c)CIT v. Motor General Finance Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 449 (Delhi). 5. As against this, learned Counsel of assessee kly supported order of CIT(A). Our attention was drawn to page 5 of 2nd Paper Book in support of this contention that no fresh interest-bearing loan was raised during this year, it was also submitted that in subsequent year i.e., assessment year 1999- 2000, to such disallowance is made and our attention was drawn to assessment order of that year as appearing on pages 6-7 of 2nd paper book. Reliance was placed on Tribunal order rendered in case of Dy. CIT v. O.P. Enterprises [IT Appeal No. 4216 (Mum.) of 2002 dated 3-3-2006], copy of which was furnished and kept on record. It was submitted that it was held as per this Tribunal order that since there was no fresh borrowing in current year and no disallowance in earlier year, it is indicated that it is accepted by department that borrowed funds were for business purpose and hence no disallowance in this year is justified. It was submitted that facts are similar in this case and hence order of learned CIT(A) should be upheld. It was also submitted that burden is on revenue to prove that borrowed funds were diverted as interest-free advances and since that has not been discharged, order of learned CIT(A) should be upheld for this reason also. 6. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record and we find that it is admitted fact that interest-free fund to tune of Rs. 767.95 lakhs is available with assessee and interest-free advances given by assessee is only Rs. 423.97 lakhs. Assessing Officer is accepting that to extent of interest-free advance of Rs. 235.40 lakhs from sister concerns included in total available fund of Rs. 767.95 lakhs, no disallowance is required since he has disallowed on balance amount of Rs. 188.57 lakhs (Rs. 423.97 lakhs - 235.40 lakhs) only. Assessing Officer has not established any nexus between interest bearing borrowed funds and interest-free advances given by assessee. At same time, assessee could also not establish nexus between interest-free funds available and interest-free advances given by him. But it is seen from details as appearing on page 5 of 2nd paper book that interest was paid in earlier and subsequent years to almost all parties to whom interest is paid in this year and there is no such disallowance in earlier or subsequent year. Under these facts, Tribunal order rendered in case of O.P. Enterprises (supra) is applicable and in view of that, we are of considered opinion that no interference is called for in order of learned CIT(A) on this issue. Judgments relied upon by learned DR of Revenue are not applicable in present case because facts are different. In case of Sanghvi Swiss Refills (P.) Ltd. (supra), there is clear nexus between interest-free advances given by assessee and funds received by assessee on which interest was paid because same amount was given as interest-free advances to sister concerns on same date on which, amount was received by assessee. There is no such nexus in present case. Similarly, Judgment in case of V. I. Baby & Co. (supra) is also not applicable in present case because it was held in that case that if interest bearing fund is borrowed after giving interest-free advances, then even if fund was available at time of giving interest-free advances, borrowing is not for business purpose but for supplementing cash diverted by assessee. In present case, there is no fresh borrowing after giving interest-free advances and hence this judgment is not applicable here. judgment in case of Motor General Finance Ltd. ( supra) is also not applicable in present case because in that case, adverse inference was drawn by Assessing Officer against assessee to effect that borrowed funds were diverted for advances to sister concerns for reason that assessee did not furnish bank statements to enable Assessing Officer to examine as to whether advances are out of borrowed funds. There is no such allegation in present case that assessee did not furnish bank statement or any other document called for by Assessing Officer and hence this judgment also is not applicable in present case. Therefore, this ground of revenue is rejected. 7. In result, this appeal of revenue stands dismissed. *** Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (OSD-I), Central Range-7, Mumbai v. Kukreja Development Corpn