B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, CJ. ( 1 ) UNDER Section 256 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the following question : "whether, on the findings of fact recorded by it, the Tribunal could legally hold that the assessee was entitled to exemption granted by Rule 6dd (j) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, in respect of the three transactions mentioned by it in its order ?" ( 2 ) THE assessee is a firm carrying on the business of kirana goods on commission agency basis. The assessment year concerned is 1972-73. In the course of assessment proceedings, the income-tax Officer found that four payments in favour of three parties in sums of more than Rs. 2,500 each were made otherwise than by a crossed cheque or a crossed bank draft. The explanation given by the assessee in this behalf was rejected and assessment made. However, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. He accepted the explanation given by the assessee in respect of the four payments. He also found that the genuineness of the payments was not in dispute. The Department appealed to the Tribunal. The tribunal dismissed the appeal agreeing with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner whereupon this reference was obtained. ( 3 ) OUT of the four payments in question, two payments are in favour of Garg and Sons. The assessees case was that there were regular dealings with the assessee and the said party, and that generally payments were made by bank drafts, but so far as these two payments are concerned, they had to be made after the close of the banking hours and also because advance payment of price was necessary before delivery of soda ash. This explanation was accepted by the Tribunal. The same was said to be the position with respect to one payment made to Sushil and Brothers. So far as the payment made to Ashok Chemical Agency is concerned, the asses-sees explanation was that the party was new to the assessee and he wanted payment in cash. A certificate of the said party was also filed in support of the said story. The Tribunal accepted the said explanation as well. The Tribunal also found that the genuineness of the four payments is beyond dispute. ( 4 ) IT would be evident that the findings of the Tribunal are factual in nature. A certificate of the said party was also filed in support of the said story. The Tribunal accepted the said explanation as well. The Tribunal also found that the genuineness of the four payments is beyond dispute. ( 4 ) IT would be evident that the findings of the Tribunal are factual in nature. The question referred to us is whether the Tribunal could legally hold that the assessee was entitled to exemption granted by Rule 6dd (j) of the Income-tax Rules. We do not see why the Tribunal could not legally accept the explanation offered by the assessee. It is neither a case of perverse finding nor is it a case where it can be said that there was no material on record to support the finding. ( 5 ) THE question is answered accordingly, i. e. , in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. No costs. .