TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 411
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the land was cultivated with crops like cotton, groundnut, chillies, Bengal gram and green gram. Assessee's husband Shri. Dheerendra B. Huilgol was examined since he was the largest holder of agricultural land and also since assessee had received some of the loans mentioned in the table above through him. AO after verifying the submissions of the assessee and also considering the Village Accountant's certificate, came to a conclusion that assessee and her family members had substantial agricultural holding and family of the assessee was one of the richest in the area. However according to him, savings from agricultural income claimed at Rs. 18 lakhs, if it was really there, would not have been held by the assessee in cash but would have been banked. He was of the opinion that assessee's claim that the money was kept as such in the house could not be believed. He accepted Rs. 5 lakhs as reasonable savings from agriculture and the balance of Rs. 13 lakhs was treated as unexplained investment for the purchase of property. 04. For the loan of Rs. 7 lakhs from Kanakadas Shikshana Samithi, claimed to have been received by assessee's husband, through cheques from the said Samithi, as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o lend a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs to the assessee. Further as per the AO, these persons had also not produced any evidence for sale of agricultural produce and their claim that the money was kept in cash at their home without banking it could not be believed. He considered the sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- as unexplained. 07. Vis-a-vis hand loan of Rs. 5 lakhs claimed to have been taken from Shivappa H. Neeralgi, submission of the assessee was that borrowal was by her husband who had given it to her. Shivappa was also examined by the AO and in such statement he stated that he had 30 acres where commercial crops were cultivated and earned an income of Rs. 4.5 lakhs per annum therefrom. He also stated that the sale of agricultural produce was done on the field on spot basis and there were no records for sale. AO refused to believe this also for a reason that after meeting the expenditure of the big family that the lender had, he would not have had much cash with him for giving loans to assessee's husband. Further as per the AO if assessee needed money she would have borrowed directly and not through her husband. He considered Rs. 5 lakhs also as unexplained. 08. For the loan of Rs. 5 lakhs c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orthiness and genuineness all stood established. Concerned persons had appeared before the AO and confirmed the loans. Concerned persons had also produced proof for holding of agricultural land and income therefrom. Therefore, according to her, assessee had discharged her onus for proving the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction. 13. Continuing her arguments, Ld. AR submitted that the money was kept in cash by the creditors, since there was no bank in Huilgol village. According to her all the persons were agriculturists and not well versed with banking methodology. According to her, it was normal practice among agriculturists in villages to hold cash in their homes without banking and this could not be a reason for disbelieving the loans of the creditors. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of coordinate bench in the case of Smt. Meena Nagaraj Naik v. DCIT [ITA.324/Bang/2013, dt.11.04.2014]. As per the Ld. AR, even the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt. P. Padmavathi v. ITO [ITA.No.414 of 2009, dt.06.10.2010] had held that once the money was with the assessee it was not the concern of the Departmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r husband were having bank accounts, it is difficult to believe that savings from agricultural income was kept by them in cash as such at home. As for the decision of coordinate bench in the case of Meena Nagaraj Naik (supra), as pointed out by the Ld. DR, period of holding of cash in hand was short and not in years. No doubt, there cannot be a surmise that it was not probable for an assessee to retain cash withdrawn from bank account, without utilizing the same. However, here the explanation for the same was not withdrawal from the bank, but earnings from agricultural income. It is difficult to believe that a person who was having a bank account would have kept as much as 18 lakhs in cash in her / his house without banking. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that AO was justified in considering Rs. 5 lakhs as saving from agricultural income that could have been kept by the assessee. In our opinion, lower authorities were justified in making an addition of Rs. 13 lakhs. Ground 4 of the assessee therefore stands dismissed. 16. Ground raised by the assessee in respect of addition of Rs. 2,98,000/- claimed to have been withdrawn from a cash credit account with bank appears ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve been taken through her husband. Further, as per the AO there was a gap of 4 - 5 months between the loan and acquisition of the property. What we note is that the loans from Kanakadasa Shikshana Samithi were taken by assessee's husband through cheques of Rs. 5 lakhs and Rs. 2 lakhs and this has not been disputed by the Revenue. B. F Danin, President of Kanakadasa Shikshana Samithi had confirmed the loans. Gap between August 2006 and December 2006, was not so large to disbelieve the version. Assessee's husband had appeared before the AO and confirmed that the loan was given to his wife. In such a situation. In our opinion, the loan claimed to have been taken from Kanakadasa Shikshana Samithi ought not have been disbelieved. 19. However, vis-a-vis, loan of Rs. 8 lakhs claimed to have been taken from Veeranna Sajjanar and Girijadari Sajjanar of Kelur village, the agricultural income certified by the village accountant was only Rs. 2,75,000/- per annum. It is not possible to believe that after meeting the expenditure of their family, Veeranna Sajjanar, could save enough to give a loan of Rs. 8 lakhs to the assessee. Said persons also could not show that why they could not gi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eness of the loan has not been proved by the assessee. 21. Coming to the loan of Rs. 5 lakhs claimed to have been taken from Allasab, we find that the contentions were very similar to that of the loan claimed to have been taken from Shivappa. Transactions were claimed to have been in cash. There is no evidence for sale of agricultural produce. Money claimed to have been accumulated was never banked. Claim that there was no banking facility in Huilgol was only a camouflage since admittedly there was a bank facility in Gadag which was only ten kms away. In this case also assessee has not been able to establish the genuineness of loan. 22. Coming to the loan of Rs. 5 lakhs taken from Devappa, situation is almost the very same. Claim is that loan was taken in cash and the creditor had saved the money out of agricultural income over various years. In our opinion, genuineness of the transaction has not been proved here also. 23. In all the above cases except for loan of Rs. 7 lakhs claimed to have been taken from Kanakadasa Shikshana Samithi, what we find is that assessee is simply relying on a certificate from Village Accountant for the source of the source of the creditors. It is no....