Tribunal held that majority of the loans or deposits were taken from relatives, viz., wife, son and daughters. The loan or deposits accepted by the assessee in cash from his wife, son and daughter would not suffer penalty under section 271D of the Act. Therefore, the penalty, imposed under section 271D of the Act, was to be deleted. Followed Deepika  (Smt.)   v. Add. CIT (I. T. A. No. 561/Bang/2017 dated October 13, 2017), CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goel [2009 315 ITR 163 (P&H) (HC) and CIT v. M. Yesodha  (Smt.)  [2013 351 ITR 265 (Mad)  (HC) . In respect of the loans or deposits accepted from persons other than relatives, the assessee contended that it was business transactions. Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification whether the said  transaction was  a business transaction and not a loan or deposit. (AY. 2004-05 to 2009-10)