How many judgments cite Sumati Dayal v. CIT?

1,967 judgments on BharatTax cite Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sumati Dayal v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 142(1), Section 115BBE.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT

214 ITR 801Supreme Court of India1995#12 most cited

What is Sumati Dayal v. CIT authority for?

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

1,967

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sumati Dayal v CIT · Section 68 · human probabilities · genuineness of transaction · true nature of transaction · accommodation entry · bogus capital gains · penny stock · look behind apparent form · preponderance of probability · colourable device · unexplained loans

Also reported as

80 Taxmann 89125 CTR 124

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 142(1)Section 115BBE Section 69C Section 69A

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

price rigging colourable device preponderance of probability bogus ltcg penny stock section 10(38)entry operator addition under section 68 addition u/s 68 genuineness of the transaction accommodation entry share application money

Judgments citing Sumati Dayal v. CIT

Eastern and Western Dresses Trading Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-8(1), New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1939/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Eastern & Western Dresses Trading Pvt. Ltd., Ward-8(1), No. 7, Shankar Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabce5153G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 68

…he assessee has not been able to plead and prove genuineness and creditworthiness of the share application/premium in issue so as to satisfy the rigor of section 68 unexplained cash credits. Hon’ble apex court landmark decisions in Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and PCIT Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Co. (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC) have settled the issue in the department’s favour that all such documentary evidences ought to be examined in the light of human probabilities after removing all blinkers and mere filing of documentary evidence in such an instance does…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax -19(3), Mumbai vs. Sanjay Prakashmal Jain, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2992/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 254(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2992/MUM/2025 (AY : 2008-09)) (Physical hearing) ACIT-19(3), Mumbai Sanjay Prakashmal Jain Vs B, Mahavir Darshan, 26 Khambata Lane, 8th Khetwadi Back Road, Mumbai – 400004. PAN: ADYPJ4763A Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee by Sh. R.K. Singh AR - (Virtually) Revenue by Sh. Mahesh Dattatraya Londhe, Sr. DR Date of hearing 01.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 02.07.2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JM; 1. This appeal by revenue is directed against the order of…

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Sonu Marketing Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 923/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathanito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata Vs M/S Sonu Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 71/3, Kankurgachi, Kolkata-700054 Pan No. :Aadcs 5515 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Vidhi Ladia, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 19.03.2025, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074708973(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Ms. Vidhi Ladia, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. In The Revenue'S Appeal The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- 1. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 29.48,304/- On Account Of Non-Genuine Losses. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Deciding The Case In Favour Of The Assessee By Misinterpreting The Relevant Terms Of The Decisions Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Cases Of Uoi Vs. Ashish Agarwalla (2022 Scc Online Sc 543) & Uoi Vs. Rajeev Bansal (Dated 03.10.2024) [Civil Appeal No. 8629 Of 2024].

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi Ladia, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

Section 68

…manner in which the allegation against the assessee has to be considered. 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case. and in law. the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the judicial principles laid down in the matter of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) and also in the matter of CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 1973 CTR (SC) 500: [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC). 7. The appellant prays that the tax effect in the instant case is 9,11,026/- which is below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. However, it is humbly prayed that the case falls within the exception clause…

Ketan Himatlal Mehta, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. NFAC, Not Applicable

ITA 2498/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Kavita P. Kaushik

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 68

…is also beyond human probability that the appellant was maintaining cash balance in the range of Rs. 45.00 Lacs throughout the year/up to date deposit of Rs. 45.00 Lacs in bank account. The AO has rightly relied upon the judgment of Sumati Dayal v. CIT[1995] 214 ITR 801 while holding that balance sheets submitted by the appellant are "after thought" of the appellant and the AO is justified in making the addition of Rs. 45.00 Lacs under section 68 of the Act. 13. The Contention of the appellant that cash withdrawal from bank of Rs. 14,10,700/- from 01/04/2016 to 07/11/2016 is a source for cash deposit of Rs. 45.0…

Hemlata Babubhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2, Bardoli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1242/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1242/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Hemlata Babubhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Near St Depot, Surali Madhi, Ward – 2, Bardoli-394 340 Bardoli, Surat - 394340 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afipp7155A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2025

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…sit during demonetization period. Such explanation runs counter to the theory of “preponderance of probability” which has been well recogniozed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 SC, Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) and NIR Iron and Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT (TS-5030-SC-2019-O). However, we also find that the assessee ITA No.1242/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Hemlata Babubhai Patel had withdrawn Rs.8,75,000/- on 09.02.2016, 9 months prior to demonetization period. The appellant has claimed that the said amount was available as cash- in-hand for redeposit in he…

DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan vs. Shri Asfaq Hajiyunus Noorani, Rander

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 716/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.716/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Asfaq Hajiyunus Noorani, Circle – 1(3), 1, Abdullah Park, Gorat Road, Surat Rander, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaopn6148A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2025

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 250(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.716/SRT/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) DCIT, Vs. Asfaq Hajiyunus Noorani, Circle – 1(3), 1, Abdullah Park, Gorat Road, Surat Rander, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAOPN6148A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT-DR Respondent by Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CA Date of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date of Pronouncement 30/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal by the re…

Steven Angelo Pinto, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Tax 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the addition so made is directed to be deleted

ITA 922/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2022-23 Steven Angelo Pinto, Income Tax Officer, A-11, Tahnee Heights, (International Taxation)-3(3)(2) Nepean Sea Road, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400006. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan : Aihpp2373C Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mihir Naniwadekar (Virtually Present) Shri Ruturaj Gurjar Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, J.Cit Date Of Hearing : 05-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2025

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, J.CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 270ASection 69A

…the whatsapp message was just a story which he created to extract a better price for his property is not borne out by facts and seems to just be an afterthought. 5.3.4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income- Tax vs. Durga Prasad More (214 ITR 801) held that human probability and circumstantial evidence has to be kept in mind to decide the genuineness of the transactions. The Hon'ble court observed that: Science has not yet invented any instrument to test the reliability of the evidence placed before a Court or Tribunal, Therefore the Courts and Tribunals have to judge the evidence before…

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Chopra Strips Limited, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6818/MUM/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 6818/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) Dcit-1(1)(1), Mumbai V/S. M/S. Chopra Strips Ltd. बिाम Room No. 579A, 5 Th Floor, D-194-195, Boranada Agro Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- Food Park, Jodhpur, 400020 Rajasthan-342008 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccc3063C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal/Shri Satish Gupta राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Yogesh Kumar, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal/ShriFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…oubt that assessee is beneficiary of accommodation entry in the nature of Share Capital. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the applicability of human probabilities as held in Sumati Dayal V. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 by Hon'ble Supreme Court.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 19.09.2012, declaring a loss of Rs. 1,81,948/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, based on the information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 18.03.2019. Therefore, AO com…

Income Tax Officer-1, Morena vs. Shri Agrasen Logistics, Jotai Road, Porsa

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…ok into the surrounding 'circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities after considering the surrounding circumstances. 18.3 Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated in Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) held that considering surrounding circumstances and applying the test of human probabilities had rightly concluded that the appellant's claim about the amount being her winning from races, was not genuine. 18.4 In identical facts, Hon'ble ITAT Agra has in Smt. Suman Gupta v. ITO [2012] 25 taxmann.com 220 (Agra) where cash was deposited eithe…

Rishi Agarwal, Guwahati vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Guwahati

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 266/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

…evidently not provide a satisfactory explanation for such discrepancies in its books of accounts and other documents and has hence been assessed adversely. Reliance is placed on the Apex court’s judgment in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT on Taxation (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC)-the finding of the Hon. Supreme Court of India in this case of Sumati Dayal is a clear example of the application of the principle that the apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that it is not the real, and that the taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to fi…

ITO, Ward-2(1), Patna vs. M/S Sun Comtech Pvt Ltd, Patna

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 108/PAT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…ed relief to the assessee without appreciating the same. The transactions carried out within a span of a few seconds and resulting in loss are not genuine transactions. In the case of Sumati Dayal vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1995] 80 Taxman 89 (SC)/[1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC)/[1995] 125 CTR 124 (SC)[28-03-1995] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “It is, no doubt, true that in all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies on the department to prove that it is within the taxing provision and if a receipt is in the nature of income, the burden of proving that it is not taxab…

Chimanbhai Chhaganbhai Pokal, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee's appeal allowed for

ITA 1525/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Khandhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 10(38)Section 68

…fore such sale of shares. Therefore, all the facts point out that the assessee had obtained bogus LTCG for the purpose of introducing his unaccounted cash in the garb of LTCG, on which exemption was claimed by the assessee. In the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the genuineness of transactions could validly be tested on the grounds or principle of preponderance of human probabilities. The Court have held that documentary evidences are not by themselves to conclusive and the truth of the matter or the documents could be determined on the basis of or on the anv…

Hansa Jitendra Haria, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hansa Jitendra Haria Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 2, Oswal Colony, Near Rajendra Income Tax Balkrindagan, Jamnagar, Gujarat Jamnagar 361005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahph4309L (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT. DR

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263Section 69A

…A No. 104/RJT/2024/AY.2013-14 Hansa Jitendra Haria vs. PCIT 2005-06 and 2007-08] the Hon'ble ITAT Pune Bench, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dhurgaprasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540(SC) and Sumathi Dayal Vs CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), has held that "A Decision based on the attending circumstances and human probabilities does not get vitiated if there are compelling reasons to reject the frontage of a transaction based on the so called evidence which is nothing more than a mere paper work". In that case the assessee had claimed to have earned short term capital gains of R…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-25(1), New Delhi vs. Viney Gems and Jewellery Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3317/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year 2017-18] Assistant Commissioner Of Viney Gems & Jewellery Private Income Tax, Circle-25(1), Limited, Room No.192A, 1St Floor, Vs B-172, Lok Vihar, Pitampura, C.R. Building, Delhi-110002 Delhi-110034 Pan-Aafca9381G Revenue Assessee Assessee By Shri Baldev Raj, Ca & Shri Maneesh Upneja, Ca Revenue By Shri Sujit Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2025

Section 206Section 68

…ed the balance amount of Rs.2,95,78,312/- (Rs.3,02,00,000 – Rs.6,21,688/-) u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. In this regard, the Assessing Officer relied upon the test of human probability and relied upon the following decisions:- i. CIT vs Durga Prasad More (214 ITR 801)(SC) ii. Hersh Win Chadha Vs DCIT (ITA Nos.3088 to 3098 & 3107/Del/2015)(Del. Trib.) iii. McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs The Commercial Tax Officer 1986 AIR 649: 4. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), in the statement of facts, it was submitted that the assessee i.e. Viney Gems and…

Nurmahammad Abhrambhai Momin Legal Heir of Late Abhrambhai Rasulbhai Momin, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 568/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Tulsian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. D.R

Section 69A

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2017-18 Nurmahammad The ITO, Abhrambhai Momin Ward-3(2)(1) Legal heir of late Vs Ahmedabad Abhrambhai Rasulbhai (Respondent) Momin, Masjid Vas, At & Post Telav Sanand, Ahmedabad PAN: AXFPM0878C (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Pradeep Tulsian, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Ravindra, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 08-05-2025 Date of pronouncement : 19-06-2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member: This is an appeal filed against the order dated 17-02- 2025…