Judgment :- THANIKKACHALAM J. In pursuance of the directions given by this court, the Tribunal referred the following question for our opinion under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of the sum of Rs. 56, 250 representing the amount forgone by the assessee as business loss ?" * In the present case, the Tribunal held that the income from the amount advanced to Alagappa Mills should be considered as business income in the case of R. M. Meenakshisundaram, the assessee's son, and, therefore, the income earned by the assessee by way of money-lending should also be considered as business income. A similar question came up for consideration before this court in the case of the assessee's son, R. M. Meenakshisundaram, wherein this court held as under, in CIT v. R. M. Meenakshisundaram 1995 (212) ITR 220, 1995 (127) CTR 329, 1995 (127) CTR(Mad) 329. "Held, that the monies received by the assessee at the family partition had been his stock-in-trade and had been continuously lent by him with a view to earn profit thereon. Even when the money was utilised by the father, it was treated as a loan from the assessee and interest was credited to the assessee's account. The assessee was carrying on the business of money-lending during these assessment years. The interest received on these loan transactions constituted business income." * In view of the abovesaid decision rendered by this court in the case of the assessee's son, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the income arising from money-lending business is business income. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.