JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Roy, learned standing counsel for the Department, and Mr. Arjun Agarwalla, learned counsel for the assessee. 2. On being moved by the Revenue, this court had directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (in short, "the Tribunal"), to state a case and refer the following question for opinion : "Whether the Tribunal erred in law in its direction that interest paid to the partner in his individual capacity was allowable in his individual capacity when the partner represented the Hindu undivided family in the firm ?" 3. Pursuant to the direction, the Tribunal has stated a case. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1981-82. The only question which received the attention of the Tribunal in the second appeal was whether the provisions of Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are attracted when a Hindu undivided family is a partner in a firm and the karta in his individual status has been paid interest on amounts advanced to the firm. This question has received the attention of this court in several cases including one in S.J.C. No. 71 of 1980 ( Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Onkarmal Nanakram (No. 1), ) disposed of on July 26, 1990, relating to the assessee itself. In the said case it was held that the provisions of Section 40(b) were not attracted. The reference in the said case related to the assessment year 1977-78. Following the aforesaid decision of this court, we answer the question referred to us in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.