JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax has filed this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the "Act"), seeking a direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the undernoted questions, labelled as of law, arising out of the order dated September 27, 1993, passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 354/Ind. of 1989 for the assessment year 1984-85 after rejection of the application presented under Section 256(1) of the Act and registered as R. A. No. 313/Ind of 1993 on August 30, 1994 : " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,05,960 spent on repairs of car which was clearly disallowable under Section 37(3A) ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), deleting the addition of Rs. 12,70,338 even when the assessee diverted its profit to the concerns in which the directors and their close relatives have substantial interest ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the claim under section 80HH even when the required conditions were not fulfilled ?" 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee sold finished products as scrap to M. P. Traders and Agents and Shri Nath Agency. The Assessing Officer, after verification found that in these concerns, the directors of the company and their close relatives have a substantial interest. He, therefore, made an addition of Rs. 12,70,338 on the assumption that the assessee diverted its profit to the concerns in which its directors and their close relatives have a substantial interest. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the addition. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) holding that there is no material to conclude that the sales effected by the assessee-company to the aforesaid two concerns are sham or bogus. The amount spent on car was also deleted. The claim under section 80HH was also allowed. Aggrieved, the Department filed the application under Section 256(1) of the Act which was rejected. Thereafter, the Department has filed this application under Section 256(2) of the Act. 3. The amount spent on car was also deleted. The claim under section 80HH was also allowed. Aggrieved, the Department filed the application under Section 256(1) of the Act which was rejected. Thereafter, the Department has filed this application under Section 256(2) of the Act. 3. We have heard Shri Anand Mohan Mathur, learned senior counsel, with Shri A. K. Shrivastava for the applicant, and Shri P. M. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the non-applicant. 4. The Revenue authorities took into consideration the expenditure incurred by the assessee on repairs of the car while computing the disallowance under Section 37(3A) of the Act. The Tribunal, following the decision in Highland Produce Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1993] 45 ITD 488 (Cochin) and the decision of the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1989] 177 ITR 124, held that the expenditure incurred on repairs of the car was required to be excluded. 5. As regards question No. 2, the Tribunal appreciated the facts correctly and passed the order. As regards the claim of allowance under section 80HH, the Tribunal applied the ratio in decision Chokshi Metal Refinery v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 63 (Guj). 6. It is, thus, clear that the decision is based on points concluded as noted above and also on proper appreciation of facts. The Tribunal declined to state the case holding that the finding of the Tribunal is based on facts as found on record and the finding based on appreciation of facts did not give rise to any question of law. 7. In CIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 543 (SC) and in CIT v. Kotrika Venkataswamy and Sons [1971] 79 ITR 499 (SC), it is held that a conclusion based on appreciation of facts does not give rise to any question of law. 8. We are satisfied that the aforesaid questions are concluded questions and the findings of the Tribunal are based on a proper appreciation of the facts. The aforesaid questions are thus, not found to be referable questions of law. 9. We, therefore, reject this application, but without any orders as to costs. Counsel's fee for each side is, however, fixed at Rs. 750 if certified.