DIPAK KUMAK SEN, J. ( 1 ) THE applicant, L. M. Thapar, seeks a certificate from us that the judgment delivered and order passed by this court on January 28, 1985, in Income-tax Reference No. 1970 of 177 (sic), involves Substantial questions of law and is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. The Substantial questions of law are stated to be as follows :" (a) Whether, in a case where an assessee has no available liquid funds at his disposal and borrows money for the purpose of payment of income-tax instead of liquidating his income-yielding assets, the interest paid on such borrowal utilised for the payment of income-tax can be allowed as a permissible deduction in computing the income of the assessee under Section 57 and/or Section 37 of the Income-tax Act ? (b) Whether, under the circumstances aforesaid, interest paid on money borrowed to make annuity deposit under Chapter XXIIA of the said Act was an allowable deduction under Section 57 and/or Section 37 of the said Act ? " ( 2 ) IT is stated that on identical questions, a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been given by this court from its judgment in M. M. Thapar v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 331 by an order dated February 6, 1979. ( 3 ) LEARNED advocate for the Revenue drew our attention to a Subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Padmavati Jaikrishna v. Addl. CIT [1987] 166 ITR 176, where the Supreme Court affirming the decision of the Gujarat High Court in [1975] 101 ITR 153 has held that interest paid on loans was not an admissible deduction under Section 57 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where amounts were borrowed to pay taxes and annuity deposit and where the assessee derived income from other sources in the shape of interest and dividends. It was Submitted that as the Supreme Court has since laid down the law, it is not necessary to grant a certificate for leave to appeal in the instant case. ( 4 ) WE note that in this case the deduction has been claimed not only under Section 57 but also under Section 36 (1) (iii) of the Income-tax Act. It was Submitted that as the Supreme Court has since laid down the law, it is not necessary to grant a certificate for leave to appeal in the instant case. ( 4 ) WE note that in this case the deduction has been claimed not only under Section 57 but also under Section 36 (1) (iii) of the Income-tax Act. In Smt. Padmavati Jaikrishna's case, the Supreme Court did not consider the question of admissibility of the deduction of interest paid on loans where Section 36 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was invoked. There is a difference in the language of Sections 36 and 57. ( 5 ) SECTION 36 provided for deduction of interest paid in respect of the capital borrowed for the purpose of the business whereas in Section 57, the deduction is allowed on expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning income through other sources. The expression "purpose of business" appears to be wider in scope than the expression "purpose of earning income ". ( 6 ) BY reason of the above and in view of the fact that a certificate has been already grunted on identical questions in M. M. Thapar's case, we allow this application. We certify that it is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court. There will be an order in terms of prayer (a ). Let the order for issue of the certificate be drawn up separately. Each party to pay and bear its own costs.