bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L)NO.2545 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs. M/s.Gavkari Prakashan ..Respondent Mr.Vimal Gupta for appellant. Mr.A.K.Jasani for respondent. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATE : 1ST JULY, 2009 P.C. Heard. Perused appeal. 2. The appeal involves mainly two questions of law, one relating to Section 271D and another relating to Section 271E of the Income Tax Act (“the 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 relating 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 th eAct 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 appellant 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. Thus finding is also based on appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)