JUDGMENT Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J. The appeal arises from a decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 29 November 2013. The assessment year to which the appeal relates is A.Y. 2003-04. 2. Two questions of law have been formulated by the revenue in support of the appeal which are as under: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in upholding the decision of CIT(A) in deleting the unexplained cash credits of Rs. 19,57,000/- without considering that explanations offered by the assessee in respect of nature and source of amount found credited in the books of the assessee were not found genuine; and 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in upholding the decision of CIT(A) in treating the income arising from sale and purchase of shares held by the assessee as Capital gain and not Business income without giving any specific findings on whether the nature of transactions in question led to the conclusion that the income was in the nature of business income.? 3. As regards the first question, the Tribunal, while confirming the order of the CIT(A) has noticed that the same issue was decided in favour of the assessee for several years and the order of the Tribunal had been upheld by this Court. Admittedly, the shares in question were held for more than one year. The Tribunal has correctly held that though the assessee may have dealt in the same shares as a part of its business in trading, this did not preclude the assessee from holding shares of the same companies as an investment. No distinction has been pointed out before the Tribunal or before the Court from the view taken in the earlier assessment years. Hence, no substantial question of law would arise. 4. As regards the second issue, the Assessing Officer had made a disallowance under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) confirmed a part of disallowance but held that for the balance, the assessee had submitted a due explanation which was worthy of acceptance. This aspect has been considered in paragraph 5.2 of the impugned order of the Tribunal which is based on an assessment of fact. No substantial question of law would arise. 5. The CIT(A) confirmed a part of disallowance but held that for the balance, the assessee had submitted a due explanation which was worthy of acceptance. This aspect has been considered in paragraph 5.2 of the impugned order of the Tribunal which is based on an assessment of fact. No substantial question of law would arise. 5. The appeal by the revenue, therefore, raises no substantial questions of law. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.