Tribunal rules in favor of taxpayer in savings bank account dispute, citing legitimacy of fixed deposit cash deposits.

The Tribunal overturned the Assessing Officer's decision to add a specific amount to the assessee's Savings Bank account, ruling that the cash deposits from the encashment of Fixed Deposits were legitimate. The Tribunal emphasized the assessee's consistent financial record and rejected the AO's doubts about the source of funds. The Tribunal referenced a Kerala HC precedent, stating that unutilized cash for a reasonable period should not be questioned. The addition was deemed unjustified, and the Tribunal ordered its deletion. The appeal partially succeeded, with dismissal of a challenge to the re-assessment proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Confirmation of addition of cash deposits in Savings Bank account

Analysis:
The only issue raised in this appeal pertains to the confirmation of the addition of a specific amount in the Savings Bank account of the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that a substantial sum was deposited by the assessee in her account and requested clarification regarding the source of these deposits. The assessee explained that the amount was from the encashment of Fixed Deposits (FDRs) in the previous year. The AO, however, rejected this explanation and made the addition, which was upheld in the first appeal.

Upon review, it was noted that the assessee had a history of filing returns and maintaining balance sheets regularly. The cash in hand from the maturity of FDRs in the past and subsequent redepositing in the bank account in the current year was considered. The Tribunal highlighted that the AO's skepticism regarding the genuineness of the source of deposits, based on the duration the cash was allegedly kept, was unfounded. Citing a precedent from the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, it was emphasized that the availability of unutilized cash for a reasonable period should not be doubted. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the addition was unjustified and ordered its deletion.

Additionally, a ground challenging the re-assessment proceedings was not pursued by the appellant and was dismissed accordingly. The appeal was partially allowed, with the order pronounced in the Open Court on a specified date.

---