ORDER Khan, J. The revenue has filed this application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for requiring Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following questions, said to be questions of law, arising out of the Tribunal order dated 21-11-1997. "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding for relief allowed to the assessee by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is not unjustified in law for want of evidence in support of the same as per the material on record and in absence of any adjudication regarding the capital and funds available with the assessee for the assessment year 1983-84 for which the issue was pending with the Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of Tribunal's own order for the said year ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1 lakh made by the assessing officer as unexplained investment holding available with the assessee and also income of the year, relying on its own decision in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1983-84 whereby the issue is yet to be decided by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)." It appears that the assessee is a firm of country liquor contractors. It filed a return for the assessment year 1984-85 declaring income of Rs. 8,676. The assessing officer completed the assessment under section 143(1) but subsequently re-opened it. Pursuant thereto, the assessee filed a return declaring income of Rs. 50,000. However, re-assessment was completed ex parte on total income of Rs. 1,87,140 including therein unexplained payment of licence fee of Rs. 1 lakh. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was dismissed. He again filed an application under section 154 which was allowed and an addition of Rs. 1 lakh was ordered to be deleted. The revenue filed an appeal against this before the Tribunal which affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. The revenue thereafter filed an application seeking reference of stated questions on the plea that the question of initial contribution of Rs. 2.50 lakhs was still pending adjudication by the revenue in 1983-84 and thereafter both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal could not have ordered the deletion. 3. The revenue thereafter filed an application seeking reference of stated questions on the plea that the question of initial contribution of Rs. 2.50 lakhs was still pending adjudication by the revenue in 1983-84 and thereafter both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal could not have ordered the deletion. The Tribunal found on facts that impugned investment was otherwise explainable and involved a question of fact. It, accordingly, turned down the request for reference. 4.We find ourselves in accordance with the view taken by the Tribunal. The stated question involves a pure question of fact and not any question of law. 5. This application, accordingly, fails and is dismissed.