Devi Prasad Singh, S.C. Chaurasia,JJ.- 1. The present appeal has been preferred only with regard to assessment year 1985-86. The Assessing Officer has imposed penalty under Section 271-B of the Income Tax Act on the ground that no effort was made prior to specified date i.e. 31st July, 1986 to obtain audit report. An appeal preferred against the order of Assessing Officer was allowed by CIT (Appeals) with the finding that the appellant made an effort for appointment of an auditor, but, same could not be appointed. Hence no penalty could be imposed. The appeal filed by the revenue authority has been allowed by Tribunal. The Tribunal has recorded a specific finding that the Assessee has not been able to show material which may indicate that before specified date i.e. 31st July 1986, any letter was written by the appellant to the authority for appointment of an auditor or for any step, which has been taken for audit of accounts. The Tribunal has gone through the records minutely and observed that the appellant has not been able to show any reasonable cause to avail the benefit of Section 271-B of the Income Tax Act. In the absence of reasonable cause, penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271-B of the Income Tax Act has been upheld. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that CIT (Appeals) has recorded a finding that an effort was made by the appellant for appointment of an auditor. However, there appears no material on record which may indicate that some effort was made before the specified date for appointing the auditor. The question of law framed by the appellant as to whether the benefit of Section 271-B of the Income Tax Act, should have been to the appellant, seems to be well considered by the Tribunal. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal does not seem to suffer from any substantial illegality. While exercising jurisdiction under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, an appeal may be admitted only on substantial questions of law, even if, there is minor error in the appreciation of evidence. In the absence of any substantial illegality, it is not open for this court to interfere under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. 3. While exercising jurisdiction under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, an appeal may be admitted only on substantial questions of law, even if, there is minor error in the appreciation of evidence. In the absence of any substantial illegality, it is not open for this court to interfere under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. 3. While exercising jurisdiction under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, it is not open for this court to re-appreciate evidence and material on record unless it is demonstrated that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is based on no evidence or it suffers from substantial illegality (77(1970) ITR 20 (SC) CIT Vs India Mica Supply Co. Pvt. Ltd. & 117(1979) ITR 568 (SC) CIT Vs Jardine Hendersan Ltd. 4. Inspite of all efforts, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to invite attention towards any document which may indicate that some effort was made by the appellant prior to specified date i.e. 31st July, 1986, to appoint an Auditor. Sub-Section 3 of Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act provides that an appeal may be admitted only in case, High Court is satisfied with regard to substantial question of law and thereafter, it shall formulate the question. The satisfaction must be based on material evidence on record and the appeal may be heard only on the question, so formulated. In the absence of any material indicating that an effort was made by the appellant prior to specified date with regard to appointment of an Auditor, benefit of Section 271-B of the Income Tax Act, is not liable to be extended. 5. Section 271-A of the Income Tax Act is quite specific and it provides that if a person fails to keep and maintain the books of account and other documents as required by Section 44AA, the Assessing Officer may direct to pay penalty. For convenience, Section 271-A of the Income Tax Act is reproduced as under:- "271A. 5. Section 271-A of the Income Tax Act is quite specific and it provides that if a person fails to keep and maintain the books of account and other documents as required by Section 44AA, the Assessing Officer may direct to pay penalty. For convenience, Section 271-A of the Income Tax Act is reproduced as under:- "271A. Without prejudice to the provisions of section 271,if any person 58(***) fails to keep and maintain any such books of account and other documents as required by section 44AA or the rules made thereunder, in respect of any previous year or to retain such books of account and other documents for the period specified in the said rules, the 59(Assessing) Officer or the 60(***) 61[Commissioner (Appeals)] may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, 62(a sum of twenty-five thousand rupees). 6. Section 271-B of the Income Tax Act provides that in case a person fails to get his accounts audited in respect of any previous year or years relevant to an assessment year, the Assessing Officer may direct to pay penalty, a sum equal to one-half percent of the total sales, turnover or gross receipts, as the case may be, in a sum of one hundred thousand rupees, whichever is less. For convenience, Section 271-B of the Income Tax Act is reproduced as under:- "271B. If any person fails 66[***] to get his accounts audited in respect of any previous year or years relevant to an assessment year or 67[furnish a report of such audit as required under section 44AB], the 68[Assessing] Officer may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to one-half percent of the total sales, turnover or gross receipts, as the case may be, in business, or of the gross receipts in profession, in such previous year or years or a sum of one hundred thousand rupees, whichever is less.]" The statutory provisions do not suffer from any ambiguity. Language is quite clear and plain. To avail the benefit, it shall be obligatory on the part of the Assessee to establish from the evidence that he has taken necessary steps to get the accounts audited before the specified date and in the absence, the Assessing Officer shall be entitled to impose penalty. 7. Language is quite clear and plain. To avail the benefit, it shall be obligatory on the part of the Assessee to establish from the evidence that he has taken necessary steps to get the accounts audited before the specified date and in the absence, the Assessing Officer shall be entitled to impose penalty. 7. As observed (Supra), the power conferred to High Court under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act is appellate jurisdiction and not a discretionary jurisdiction to entertain an appeal. In the absence of substantial question of law, an appeal shall not be maintainable. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported in (2007), 291 ITR 278, Commissioner of Income Tax Versus P. Mohan Kala, observed that the finding of facts arrived by the authorities below based on proper appreciation of facts and material available on record and surrounding circumstances, calls for no interference under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. The High Court committed error while disturbing finding of facts. 8. It has been vehementally argued by learned counsel for the appellant that being a government corporation, some leverage/concession should be given to the appellant. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant does not seem to be sustainable. While interpreting statuory provisions and while considering the case in the light of the statute, everyone is equal before the court, or quasi judicial authority or Tribunal. There may not be two criteria while interpreting the statutory provisions for deciding the issue i.e. one for government body and the other for common citizen. It shall be the anti-thesis of the rules of law to do so. In case, while deciding an issue, the government body or corporation is considered with some liberty or some relexation on one hand and for common citizen, a different standard is adopted, it shall be against the constitutional mandate. In case, government owns a corporation or enter into business activities then the corporation must run in accordance to law. It has to discharge its statutory obligations in accordance to statutory provisions like common citizen. Entering into commerical acitivities by the government through corporation or any other body, does not make out a case for special treatment to it. It may be a businessman being the citizen of the country or a businessman working through firm or any govt. It has to discharge its statutory obligations in accordance to statutory provisions like common citizen. Entering into commerical acitivities by the government through corporation or any other body, does not make out a case for special treatment to it. It may be a businessman being the citizen of the country or a businessman working through firm or any govt. corporation or body, stands on equal footings and they have to be treated equally in accordance to law in a democratic polity. It was the duty of the corporation to appoint an auditor before the specified date and get the accounts aduited and in case, it has not been done, then the Assessing Authority has got right to impose penalty under section 271-B of the Income Tax Act. 9. We are of the view that no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. The matter is concluded by finding of fact. The appeal is devoid of merit. It is dismissed in limine.