GANESH BALKRISHNA BENDE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3), PUNE

I have heard the rival submissions in Virtual Court and gone through the relevant material on record. The assessee deposited a sum of Rs.15.05 lakh in his bank account over a period of around four months from November, 2010 to March, 2011. Sources of deposit were shown, inter alia, loan of Rs.4.00 lakh taken from two persons, namely, Shyam Rao Bende and Santosh Vasudevaor Nandurkar. The assessee furnished confirmations from these two persons before the ld. first appellate authority, which clearly transpired that the loan was taken by the assessee for further foreign studies of his daughter. This contention was rejected by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee did not submit any documentary evidence of having taken loan for his daughter’s further studies. Once the advancement of loan was confirmed by the lenders and there was nothing adverse to suggest that either the lenders were bogus or the transactions were non-genuine or they did not have any credit worthiness, the explanation so tendered by the assessee deserved to be accepted. I fail to comprehend as to what sort of documentary evidence would be required to demonstrate that the loan was taken by the assessee for his daughter’s further studies, when the persons advancing the loans are saying so in their respective confirmations, which have not been controverted.

The next source of deposit was claimed as agricultural income of Rs.6.87 lakh. In support of the agricultural income, the assessee furnished Sale receipt of agricultural produce. The ld. CIT(A) did not accept the same on the ground that there was no corroborating evidence of agricultural operations and cultivation done. Again, the fact that the assessee was regularly into agricultural operations has not been denied. I am unable to comprehend the point of view canvassed by the ld. first appellate authority in the hue of the fact that the assessee did furnish sale receipt of agricultural produce which has not been found to be non-genuine or bogus and no contrary material has been placed on record by the Revenue.

For the remaining source of deposit, the assessee stated that a sum of Rs.3,79,000/- was withdrawn from Dena Bank Agriculture Account of Sheela G. Bende, his spouse, which was an agricultural loan taken from the Government of Maharashtra. She withdrew the amount from her bank account on 15-03-2010. The ld. CIT(A) did not accept the amount as a source of deposit on the ground that it was withdrawn and subsequently re-deposited.

Even though such amount was re-deposited, it cannot be held that the assessee was not in a position to manage the remaining amount of Rs.4.89 lakh when he was an agriculturist and also in a service having salary of Rs.3.94 lakh for the year.

At this juncture, it is germane to accentuate that the facts and circumstances of each transaction are required to be considered in entirety. Here is a case in which a salaried person pooled his life- long endeavour for the further studies of his daughter. In such a panorama, a holistic approach needs to be adopted. When I consider the facts of the instant case as a whole, there remains no doubt whatsoever that the assesee arranged the money from his known sources for depositing in the bank account which was meant for education of his daughter. The authorities below were not justified in getting too technical and taking a pedantic approach. I, ergo, set-aside the impugned order and delete the entire addition.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.