IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 307 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 307 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 307 OF 2009 WITH INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 308 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 308 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 308 OF 2009 WITH INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 309 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 309 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 309 OF 2009 WITH INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 310 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 310 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 310 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Nashik. ... Appellant. V/s. M/s.Gavkari Prakashan. ... Respondent. Vimal Gupta for the appellant. S.N.Inamdar for the respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 16th April 2009. : 16th April 2009. : 16th April 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. Perused appeal papers. 2. In all these appeals, mainly, two questions of law are raised, one relating to section 271D and another relating to section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act" for short). 3. So far as question leading to section 271D is concerned, the Tribunal by dealing with the contentions raised in this behalf has held that the transactions in question were genuine. After appreciating the evidence leading to acceptance of cash deposits the Tribunal has concurred with the finding of fact recorded by the CIT(A) and deleted penalties imposed under section 271D of the Act as such the said finding is based on appreciation of evidence. In view thereof, no substantial question of law could be said to be arising from the impugned order revolving around section 271D of the Act. 4. So far as question leading to section 271E is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded finding of fact that past more than 20 years, cash deposits were accepted and in all these years right from the assessment years 1985-86 to 1995-96, no penalty was levied on the petitioner for committing breach of section 271E or for that purpose under section 271D. The assessee was under bonafide belief that as the deposits from public were raised in the regular course of business, no penalty was leviable. This finding is also based on appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law is involved in these appeals. 5. All the appeals are dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, (J.P.DEVADHAR, (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) J.) J.) (V.C.DAGA (V.C.DAGA (V.C.DAGA J.) J.) J.)