JUDGMENT
Kirpal, J.
1. The petitioner seeks a reference of the following question of law to this court:
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the loans of Rs. 5.15 lakhs and Rs. 3 lakhs are to be treated as unproved loans when the condition precedent, namely, the issue regarding the person to whom the loan transactions belonged has been set aside to be determined?”
2. It appears that the Income-tax Officer, while assessing the petitioner, came to the conclusion that two sums, namely, one of Rs. 3 lakhs and another of Rs. 5.15 lakhs, which were claimed by the petitioner by way of loans, were, in fact, liable to be assessed in the hands of the petitioner. The appeal of the assessed was allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and then the second appeal was filed by the income-tax Officer. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said loans were not genuine. Against this order, a reference application was filed under section 256(1) which was dismissed and then a petition to this court under section 256(2) of the Act was also dismissed.
3. The petitioner, thereafter, moved an application under section 254 for rectification of the order before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated February 14, 1984, rectified its earlier order to the extent that the case was restored to the file of the Income-tax Officer to consider the genuineness of a joint venture agreement between the assessed and one Lalji and Co. and Maharaja Kumar Pratap Singh of Alwar. The Income-tax Officer, however, required treatment of the aforesaid sums of Rs. 5.15 lakhs and Rs. 3 lakhs as unproved loans. It is against this order that an application under section 256(1) was filed which was dismissed and the present application had now been filed.
4. In our opinion, no question of law arises from the said orders of the Tribunal. The question as to whether the loans are proved or unproved is a pure question of fact and the Tribunal has held that the loans are unproved. Direction, of course, has been given to the Income-tax Officer to determine as to in whose hands the assessment is to be made. No question of law arises and, therefore, this petition is dismissed. No orders as to costs.
5. Before concluding, we may here mention that learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that no application under section 256(2) of the Act is maintainable against an order passed under section 254. A similar contention had been raised in ITC No. 134 of 1987 (CIT v. K. L. Bhatia [1990] 182 ITR 361 (Delhi), and it was held by us that an application under section 256(1) and section 256(2) is maintainable against an order passed under section 254 of the Act.