ORDER 1. The revenue has preferred the present appeal and learned counsel submits that the main question will be question 2(A) for deletion of the income added by AO. The said question reads as under: “[A] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the ITAT is perverse in dismissing the Revenue’s appeal and thereby deleting the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account, ignoring the fact that the assessee had failed to furnish evidence to explain the nature of the cash deposits either before the AO or before the ITAT and thus, failed to discharge its onus in this regard?” 2. We have heard Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 3. The fact shows that AO in the assessment proceedings found that the assessee was having another bank account, wherein cash amount of Rs.59,04,000/-was deposited. The assessee contended that such amount was not belonging to her since she was an insurance agent, the amount was given as agent by the principal for getting insurance policy of Hero Honda Two Wheeler Motorcycle and the amount is utilizing for buying policy of the vehicle. However, AO found that the explanation is not sufficient and therefore, added the aforesaid amount in the income of the assessee. In appeal, CIT (Appeals) found that the amount is fully utilized for policy of Hero Honda Two Wheeler Motorcycle and not a single pie has ever been utilized by the assessee for her own purpose out of the aforesaid collection and therefore, it was found that the source of the deposit in the account is well explained by the assessee and therefore, the provisions of section 69 invoked by AO was not found proper by the appellate authority and it was found that the same was not legally sustainable and therefore, the appeal was allowed. 4. The Tribunal in the further appeal at para 6 observed thus: “6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that while deleting the addition, CIT (A) has given a categorical finding that the deposits in the bank account were insurance premium collected from the bike owners who had insured their bikes with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. and the premium amounts were transferred to the account of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. We find that while deleting the addition, CIT (A) has given a categorical finding that the deposits in the bank account were insurance premium collected from the bike owners who had insured their bikes with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. and the premium amounts were transferred to the account of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. CIT (A) has also given a finding that the source of the deposits in the bank account was well explained by Assessee and the addition u/s 69 was legally not sustainable. He has further noted that the Assessee has been maintaining separate account to record the insurance premium collected by her on the basis of which she gets her commission. Before us, Revenue has not brought any material on record to controvert the findings of CIT (A) and therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT (A). Thus, this ground of Revenue is dismissed.” 5. In our view, the amount lying in the respective account as per the assessee was in fiduciary capacity to be utilized for buying policy of the respective vehicle. No evidence has come on record that the amount has ever been utilized by the assessee for her own purpose and there was positive evidence that all the amount from time to time was transferred to the account of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited. Under the circumstances, the explanations were found to be satisfactory by the CIT (Appeals) as well as by the Tribunal which is the ultimate fact finding authority. We do not find that any substantial questions of law would arise for consideration as sought to be canvased. 6. Under the circumstances, the appeal is meritless and therefore, dismissed.