JUDGMENT BY THE COURT : This is an IT Ref. under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 at the instance of the Revenue and following three questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal for answer by this Court : "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law to hold that there was no good reason or new fact to interfere with the order of AAC who directed to allow the claim of deduction of payment of interest by the assessee to her two minor children ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of AAC to the effect that production of V.D. certificates in the name of two minor children was sufficient proof of genuineness of the loans and consequential allowability of the interest ? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in not setting aside the order of the AAC, which was passed by admitting fresh evidence without giving opportunity to the AO to controvert the same ?" 2. Brief facts giving rise to this case are that assessee had claimed to have paid interest to her children namely, Ku. Ravinder Kaur, Ku. Navneet Kaur and Sardar Narender Singh. The ITO disallowed the payment of interest in the absence of any evidence. Against order of the ITO assessee preferred an appeal before the AAC. The AAC held that the interest paid to the children could be allowed and accordingly, directed the ITO to allow the payment of interest as deduction from the income of the assessee. However, he confirmed the disallowance of the assessee in respect of Ku. Ravinder Kaur. Aggrieved against this order, the Revenue approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal confirmed the finding of AAC. Hence, the Revenue approached the Tribunal for making reference of the aforesaid questions for answer by this Court. Accordingly, the Tribunal has referred the aforesaid three questions to this Court. 3. It is relevant to mention that at the time the matter was argued before the ITO no evidence was there. However, at appellate stage, the counsel for the assessee produced voluntary disclosure certificates of Ku. Ravinder Kaur, Ku, Navneet Kaur and Sardar Narender Singh wherein they have disclosed Rs. 25,000 each. 3. It is relevant to mention that at the time the matter was argued before the ITO no evidence was there. However, at appellate stage, the counsel for the assessee produced voluntary disclosure certificates of Ku. Ravinder Kaur, Ku, Navneet Kaur and Sardar Narender Singh wherein they have disclosed Rs. 25,000 each. It was said that they had deposited their money with the assessee. It was also pointed out by the counsel that Ku. Navneet Kaur and Sardar Narender Singh could give loan because they disclosed cash but it is not known as to when Ku. Ravinder Kaur converted the gold into cash and gave it to the assessee. Therefore, this aspect was negatived. However, so far as the loan by two minor children is concerned, it was accepted. The said findings have been confirmed by the Tribunal. We have gone through both the orders of the AAC and the Tribunal and we are of the opinion that these are purely questions of fact as the voluntary disclosure certificates were not produced before the ITO and, therefore, the ITO rightly recorded the finding of disallowance and when they were produced before the appellate authority i.e. AAC the same were accepted in evidence in respect of Ku. Navneet Kaur and Sardar Narender Singh. In this view of the matter, in our view, the Tribunal has correctly approached the matter. All the three questions referred to by the Tribunal are purely questions of fact and no question of law is involved therein. In view of the concurrent findings of the two courts below, there is no question of law involved for answer by this Court. Consequently, this reference is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee.