ORDER
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.
The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee is as under :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in restoring the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 49,000 being the interest on moneys borrowed and diverted for overdrawal by the partner of the firm ?”
2. Mr. K. Ramagopal, the learned counsel for the applicant, very fairly states that this question is covered against him in the decision in Milapchand R. Shah v. CIT (1965) 58 ITR 525 (Mad) where the Division Bench of this court has held that if the amounts are directly diverted for non-business purposes, then the interest thereof would not be allowable. Similar view has been taken in CIT v. Sujanni Textiles (P) Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 560 (Mad) by another Division Bench of this court where one of us was a party (NVBJ).
3. In that view, we answer the question against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.