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

Asstt. Commissioner of Inocme Tax Central Circle-2(2), Nagpur vs. Shri Sudhir Ramswaroop Sarda, Nagpur

ITA 103/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 10(38)Section 68

…the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the true nature of transactions have to be ascertained in the light of surrounding circumstances as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT(214 ITR 801). (xii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the transaction through banking channel is not always genuine as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Mohan kala and others (291 ITR 278). (xiii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the…

Pooja Grover, Allahabad vs. DCIT, Cir-2, Allahabad

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

ITA 140/ALLD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 251Section 69A

…at Rs.1,82,242/-; the impugned cash credits of Rs.11,75,000/- recorded by the assessee in his name are not I.T.A. No.140/Alld/2024 9 verifiable from his ITRs for assessment year 2016-17 to 2018-19. Learned D.R. relied on the following case laws: (i) [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (ii) [2021] 277 Taxman 594 (SC), Sadiq Sheikh vs. CIT (iii) [2018] 258 Taxman 160 (SC), Pavankumar M. Sanghvi. Income Tax Officer [2018] 404 ITR 601 (Gujarat) (iv) [2014] 221 Taxman 143 (Andhra Pradesh), Gayatri Associates vs. Income Tax Officer (v) [2015] 375 ITR 123 (Calcutta) CIT vs. Maithan International (vi) [2007]…

DCIT-27(2), Mumbai, Vashi, Navi Mumbai vs. Pyramid Infratech Co., Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1426/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 1426/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT-27(2), Mumbai Vs. Pyramid Infratech Room No.419, 4th Floor, Co. Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Plot No.19, Sector-8, Station Complex, Vashi, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai-400703 Navi Mumbai-400701 PAN: AAMFP8951D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi Respondent by Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, SR. D.R. Date of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 18.03.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The pres…

Ranjeet Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 5 (5), Patna

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

ITA 304/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(2)Section 69A

…liability of the evidence placed before a court or tribunal. Therefore, the courts and Tribunals have to judge the evidence before them by applying the test of human probabilities". 8.6 Similarly, in a later decision in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [(1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC)], Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the theory that it is for alleger to prove that the apparent and not real, and observed that, "This, in our opinion, is a superficial approach to the problem. The matter has to be considered in the light of human probabilities. Similarly the observation ...that if it is alleged that these tickets were obtaine…

Chandra Prakash Jain, Jaipur vs. Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 66/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Joint CIT, Ld

Section 10(38)Section 139(4)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 37Section 69C

…re the test of "Human Probabilities". The "Human Probability Tests" were laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for the first time in the case of CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and followed in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). The information received from investigation wing and statement of Shri Anil Kumar Khemka supplied to the assessee clearly explains the modus operandi of this bogus transaction. The case laws cited by the assessee in his defense also do not help him being distinguishable on the facts of this case. In the present case, the assessee had claime…

Prakash Kapoorchand Kothari, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3082/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, CA and Shri Vipul Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 131Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

…ry not recorded in the books of accounts and nature and source of which is not identifiable, it was added as deemed income u/s.69A. For this, ld. Assessing Officer relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT(A) [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC). 4.6. In the conclusion, ld. Assessing Officer noted in the para as reproduced below: “……assessee purchased jewellery amounting to Rs. 1,40,00,000/- and failed to explain satisfactorily the source of this cash receipts. Accordingly, this purchase of jewellery amounting to Rs. 1,40,00,000/- so credited is deemed to be the income of the asses…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena, Jaipur

ITA 288/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev sogani, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 288/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2020-21 Deputy commissioner of Income cuke Shri Dulhe Ram Meena Vs. Tax, 17, Durga Vihar, Malviya Jaipur. Nagar, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFWPM4366E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Rajeev sogani, C.A. & Ms. Ruchika sogani, Adv. jktLo dh vksjls@Rev…

Ravilochanah Mercantile Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 800/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ravilochanah Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Ito Wad 4(1) C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Aaykar Bhavan, Advocates, 2 Garstin Place Sagar Vs. Mansion, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.S 202 & Kolkata-700069 203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcr444P Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…e assessee itself. However, the ld. AO relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC)[26-08-1971] and 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], treated the share capital/ share premium of ₹1,02,00,000/- as unexplained income of the assessee and added the same to the income of the assessee. 04. The ld. CIT (A) in the appellate proceedings also dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the order of ld. Assessing Officer. 05. After hearing…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…enuineness of the loans. 2. Non-Compliance with Summons Under Section 131: a. Summons were issued under Section 131 to the directors and key personnel of the loan-providing entities, but they failed to comply. b. As emphasized in Sumati Dayal v. CIT [(1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC)], such non-compliance strengthens the inference that the transactions are not genuine. c. The CIT(A) ignored the significance of this non-compliance, which corroborates the AO’s findings. 3. Assessee Was Confronted with Reasons for Reopening and Show Cause: a. The assessee was confronted with the reasons for reopening the assessment, and a…

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Priti Nilesh Jain Daga, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4616/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…ficiary of such transactions ? * Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the CIT(A) ignored the direct and circumstantial evidences in view of the decisions in. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC) and SumatiDayal [1995] 80 Taxmann 89(SC) [1995] 2014 ITR 801(SC) [1995] 125 CTR 124(SC) rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where under it was held that the Court and Tribunal have to judge the evidence before it by applying the test of human probabilities, the surrounding circumstances which exercise had been done by the Assessing Officer?" 9. "Whether on the facts and circums…

Priti Nilesh Jain Daga, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4507/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Kolkata vs. M/S Mundhra Construction Private Limited

ITAT/10/2025HC Calcutta07 Mar 2025

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- The Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das)

Section 260ASection 68

…is an earlier decision of Hon’ble High Court having a precedence value ? 5. Whether the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in ignoring the judicial principles laid down in the matter of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 [SC] ? 6. Whether the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in not taking cognizance of the judicial principles laid down in CIT vs. Durga Prasad More 1973 CTR [SC] 500 : [1971] 82 ITR 540 [SC] ? 7. Whether the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in giving t…

Shri Ganesh Bhivraj Bhutada, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle1(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1132/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri V Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1131 & 1132/PUN/2024 Assessment Years : 2017-18 to 2018-19 Shri Ganesh Bhivraj Bhutada ACIT, 812, Kasba Peth, Near Kamla Vs. Central Circle-1(1), Nehru Hospital, Pune – 411011 Pune PAN: AHPPB9435N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri V Narendra Sharma, Advocate Department by : Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 16-12-2024 Date of pronouncement : 06-03-2025 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : The above two appeals filed by the assessee are directed aga…

Shri Ganesh Bhivraj Bhutada, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle1(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1131/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri V Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

Rishikesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2431/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 245Section 250Section 250(4)

…em in the assessee company. However, despite being provided several opportunities the assessee could not justify the same. The Ld. AO relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 and treated the entire amount as unexplained money and assessed the total income at Rs. 2,16,46,030/- u/s 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who passed an ex parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee as sufficient opportunity of being heard was provided to the assessee ye…

Rahul Jabarmal Jain, Mumbai vs. Assistant. Commissioner of Income Tax -19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

ITA 3525/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanrahul Jabarmal Jain Vs. Acit 19(3) 1204/B 12 Floor, Pratiksha Tower, R. 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, S. Nimkar Marg, Mumbai Central, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 008 Pan: Aempj8236K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37

…ore them. They were entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of the recitals made in those documents.. 6.4. It is a well settled principle of law as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs.CIT" (214 ITR 801)(SC) that the true nature of transaction have to be ascertained in the light of surrounding circumstances. It needs to be emphasized that a standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt has no applicability in determination of matters under taxing statutes. In the present case, it is clear that apparent is not the real as evidenced from the observati…

Income Tax Officer - 23(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jewel India, Bandra West, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3622/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarincome Tax Officer- Vs. Jewel India, Shop No.1, 23(2)(1), Kashi Kunj Waterfield Mumbai-400050 Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050. Pan/Gir No. Aalfj4863D (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 68

…parties to whom the assessee had sold diamonds also remained unverifiable, as assessee failed to produce confirmation of identifiable persons with whom alleged concocted sale in cash was made during the demonetization period. The cases of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 6 (SC) and CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 80 ITR 540 (SC) were also relied upon. 8. On the contrary, Ld.AR while relying upon the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) also submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had placed on record all the documentary evidences to prove the source of cash deposited by the assessee. It was submitted t…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -1 vs. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd

ITA/530/2023HC Delhi03 Mar 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

Section 133(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 68

…be the assessee's own undisclosed income. xxx xxx xxx 12. On the issue of unexplained credit entries/share capital, we have examined the following judgments: 12.1. In Sumati Dayal v. CIT [Sumati Dayal v. CIT, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 453 : (1995) 214 ITR 801] this Court held that: (SCC p. 456, para 4) “4. … if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the assessing officer, not satisfactory, there is prima facie evidence against the assessee viz. the receipt of money, and if he fails to rebut the same, the said evidence being unrebutted c…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -1 vs. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd

ITA/531/2023HC Delhi03 Mar 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 133(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 68

Manojbhai Arvindbhai Parekh, Rajkot vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 385/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 385 /Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Manojbhai Arvindbhai Parekh The Acit Of I. T. Circle – 2(1), Shreeji Giriraj Trading, 19-Giriraj Vs. Rajkot – 360001 Chamber, Old Gadhiwas Soni Bazar, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acypp1471C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…to making high-value cash transactions, especially when the impending demonetization created significant uncertainty about the value of large currency denominations, 6. Support from Supreme Court Judgment-CIT vs. Sumati Dayal: In CTT vs. Sumati Dayal (1995) [214 ITR 801 (SC)], the Supreme Court emphasized that claims contradicting common human behaviour and market probabilities should not be accepted without substantive evidence. In that case, the Court rejected Sumati Dayal's claim of frequent horse race winnings due to the improbability of such events occurring naturally. Applying this principle here, the sudd…