ORDER A.K. MATHUR, C.J.: This is an application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue for calling statement of case from the Tribunal on the following questions of law : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding that the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 1126 (1984) 154 ITR 148 (SC), in respect of tax avoidance by colourable device are not applicable to the case of the assessee-firm ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding that the assessee-firm is entitled to depreciation under s. 32 of the IT Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 14,75,000 on Thermax Boilers? " 2. Brief facts giving rise to this reference are that the respondent assessee, a registered firm, has a sister-concern, viz., M.P. Oil Extraction Ltd., Raipur. All the partners of the assessee except one, are directors in M.P. Oil Extractions Ltd., For the asst. yr. 1991-92 the assessee filed return declaring an income of Rs. 15,18,190. In the return, the assessee claimed depreciation at the rate of 100 per cent, i.e., Rs. 14,75,000 on one boiler purchased by them from their own sister-concern, i.e., MP Oil Extractions Ltd. for Rs. 14,75,000. It was stated that after purchase of this boiler, the assessee again leased it out to the same sister-concern, i.e., MP Oil Extractions Ltd. on annual rent of Rs. 3,00,000. The AO disallowed the claim in respect of depreciation of the said boiler. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the matter was taken up in appeal before the CIT(A) which reversed the finding of the AO holding that the transaction in question was valid as money has been paid by this firm for the business of leasing out the boiler and there was no device to evade any law. Hence, the finding given by the AO was reversed by the CIT(A). 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue approached the Tribunal by filing an appeal. The Tribunl after examining the question, came to the conclusion that the whole transaction appeared to be well founded. Hence, the finding given by the AO was reversed by the CIT(A). 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue approached the Tribunal by filing an appeal. The Tribunl after examining the question, came to the conclusion that the whole transaction appeared to be well founded. It was pointed out by the Tribunal that payment was made by account payee cheque and intimation of sale of the boiler was also given to the Dy. Chief Inspector of Boiler who affirmed the sale of the boiler to the assessee and change of name of the owner in the office record, It is not disputed that the boiler was leased out to the earlier seller. It is also not disputed that the assessee was carrying on leasing business for the last several years. Therefore, after examining these questions of fact, the Tribunal affirmed the finding of the CIT(A) and pointed out that the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (supra) does not apply in the case of the present assessee. 5. We have gone through the record and perused the order of the Tribunal. We are satisfied that this is essentially a question of fact whether the assessee has committed any breach of law or has acted in violation of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. We are satisfied that these questions of fact were rightly examined by the Tribunal. Both the questions framed by the Revenue are essentially questions of fact and no question of law is involved. 6. There is no merit in this reference application which is dismissed.