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 367,368 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

ITO, Ward-1(1), Kol, Kolkata vs. M/S. Illusion Barter Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 537/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…conducted an independent investigation into the trading in shares of M/s. Cressanda Solutions Ltd and his findings should have been incorporated in the assessment order. The AO relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801) and Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540), however, these judgements are not applicable to the instant case as the AO has not” Page 3 of 5 I.T.A. No.: 537/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Illusion Barter Pvt. Ltd. 6.2. The entire addition is on assumption basis. In assessment the ld. AO unable to bring any evidence that the transaction related…

M/S. Bmm Ispat Limited, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 381/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Giriji G.P., A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Senthil Kumar N., D.R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 250Section 68Section 92C

…ar M. Sanghvi Vs. ITO (2018) 404 ITR 601. 5) Decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati in the case of United Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. CIT & Anr. (2003) 264 ITR 254. 6) Decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801. 7) Decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Kaveri Associates Vs. ACIT (ITA No.375 of 2013) (2020) 429 ITR 40. 5. On the other hand, ld. D.R. submitted that u/s 68 of the Act, the assessee has proved the identity ad capacity of parties as well as genuineness of transaction. In the present case, assessee has only proved the…

Sh. Bipan Jain, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-III, Ludhiana

In the result, the ground no

ITA 354/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 153A

…broker to make the scheme appearing to be falling within the four corners of law and these documents are incriminating in nature as they have direct bearing on the assessment of correct income of the assessee. Moreover as per the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801(SC) even the circumstantial evidence based on pre-ponderance of probability constitute incriminating material enough to make an assessment of income. 6.2 It was further stated by the AO in his remand report that the statement of Shri Suresh Khemka through which the assessee purchased the shares was recorded on oath on 13/03/2015 by the Investigat…

Sh. Ashish Jain, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-III, Ludhiana

In the result, the ground no

ITA 353/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 153A

Sh. Ashish Jain, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-III, Ludhiana

In the result, the ground no

ITA 352/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 153A

Sh. Akhil Jain, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-III, Ludhiana

In the result, the ground no

ITA 351/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 153A

ITO-23(3)(6), Mumbai vs. Suresh Jugraj Jain, Mumbai

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

ITA 273/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am Ito-23(3)(6) Suresh Jugraj Jain Room No. 608, Earnest House, Ground Floor, Gurukrua Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. 267/269, Mumbadevi Road, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- 400002

For Appellant: Shri Amit JhaveriFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…er amount, only for the reason of avoiding the KYC procedure where the KYC details were of lesser amount, only for bills beyond the specified amount. The ld. A.O. by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) and in the case of Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) held that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and has merely manipulated the sales and purchases for the purpose of bringing into account the unaccounted money. 11. The assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority challenging the ord…

Mrs. Nisha Ashish Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO-31(2) (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1519/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1519/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Mrs. Nisha Ashish Gupta बिधम/ Ito-31(2)(4) 1501, Anmol Enclave, Opp Pratyakshakar Bhavan, C- Vs. Patel Auto, Goregaon West, 13, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400062. Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adlpg0969J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vishnu Agarwal/Shri Amit Agarwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/12/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 18.08.2021 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Disallowing The Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) Claimed By The Assessee In Respect Of Sale Of Shares M/S. Sunrise Asian Limited (Hereafter “M/S. Sunrise”) Of Rs.98,81,550/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). & Thus Denying Deduction U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding Addition Of Rs.1,97,631/- As Commission For Arranging The Bogus Ltcg (2% Of Commission) U/S 69C Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Agarwal/Shri AmitFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr

Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

…tributed to the assessees. No fault can be found with the above finding recorded by the Tribunal. 37 A.Y. 2014-15 Mrs. Nisha Ashish Gupta 15. Reliance placed by the counsel for the Revenue on the decision of the apex court in the case of Sumati Dayal [1995] 214 ITR 801 is wholly misplaced. In that case, the assessee therein had claimed income from horse races and the finding of fact recorded was that the assessee therein had not participated in races, but purchased winning tickets after the race with the unaccounted money. In the present case, the documentary evidence clearly shows that the transactions were at…

Bhanuprasad Maganlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 7/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…hat genuineness could validly be tested on the ground or principle of preponderance of human probabilities, which could thus form a valid ground or parameter for determining the genuineness, stands since settled by the apex court in Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) wherein the apex court, in declaring the transaction as non-genuine, discarded a host of documentary evidences filed or relied upon by the assessee-appellant. The case laws cited by the AO in the assessment order(supra) are also quite relevant on this issue and they all strengthen the stand taken by the Department in the instant case. 2.9. A…

Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 763/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata 5, Sree Charan Sarani Vs Bally Howrah – 711201 (West Bengal) [Pan : Aabcn7736Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issues Raised In Ground Nos. 2 To 4 Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Difference Between The Value Taken By The Assessee & The Fair Market Value (Fmv) U/S 50C Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That During The Year, The Assessee Sold Two Flats For An Aggregate Consideration Of Rs.3,00,00,000/- & Accordingly Addition Of Rs.3,26,37,314/- Was Made To The Income Of The Assessee. In 2

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

…rs, contract notes, bank statements and copy of d-mat account. The Assessing Officer, after relying on various decisions including the decisions Commissioner Of Income-Tax, vs Durga Prasad More 1971 82 ITR 540 SC and in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801(SC), treated the loss on sale of shares as bogus and 4 I.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. disallowed the same and consequently no set off was allowed in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 10.11.2015. 7. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer…

Sandeep Reddy Yarabaka Chenchu, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 941/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 69A

…d rent having been received in cash. However, ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR 540 and also relied on the judgement in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT reported in 214 ITR 801 by observing that the conduct of the assessee and the material on record, an inference could be reasonably drawn that the assessee’s explanation as source of cash deposit during the demonetization Sandeep Reddy Yarabaka Chenchu, Bangalore Page 4 of 15 period is a part of cash withdrawal is afterthought and an attempt to explain the source of cash…

Shri Balkrishna Gajanan Thopte, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 2, Kalyan

ITA 3380/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…with the following observation: “18. This entire edifice through which the assessee claimed to have earned huge tax exempt gains within a very short span of time fails the tests of both genuineness and human probabilities. In the case of Sumati Dayal Vs CIT (214 ITR 801) the apex court propounded the principle of human probabilities and applying 5 it in that case held that whether apparent is real is to be decided on the basis of incriminating circumstances. The supreme court even took note of the scheme of converting black money into white through the route of lottery winnings etc by stating that "In this conte…

Creative Realmart Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Jaipur

ITA 599/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…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". 9.9 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 as 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…

Goldiam Jewellery Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC 1(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed partly

ITA 3219/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Goldiam International Limited Plot No.16/17 Gems & Dcit, Central Circle 1(2) Vs. Jewelry Complex Seepz Sez Mumbai Andheri East, Mumbai-400 096 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg2271J

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar, DR

Section 10(35)Section 133ASection 143Section 147Section 148

…Goldiam International Limited; A.Y. 16-17 transaction of purchase and sale of mutual fund has been made with the motive to create bogus laws and on tax-free dividend. He relied upon the decision of honourable Supreme Court in case of Sumati Dayal versus CIT (214 ITR 801) and held that AO is correct in treating the dividend income of ₹ 9,942,767 as sham and a loss of ₹ 10,565,468 has fictitious. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. 011. Assessee aggrieved with that is in appeal before us. On the issue of reopening of the assessment, it was claimed that assessee filed its return of income…

Omkar Metal and Alloys Corporation, C P Tank Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19. 2. 4, Matru Mandir

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 2838/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Omkar Metal & Alloys Ito 19.2.4, Corporation, C P Tank Matru Mandir, Opp Bhatia Room No. 47, Balakrishna Vs. Hospital, Grant Road (West), Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Mumbai-400007. Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aaafo 4997 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…llate order decisions cited in the impugned appellate order including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801. The Ld. CIT(A) also . The Ld. CIT(A) also rejected the contention of the assessee that no opportunity of cross- rejected the contention of the assessee that no opportunity of c rejected the contention of the assessee that no opportunity of c examination was provided provided, on the ground that the assessee…

Nidhi Omsharan Mohnia, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3281/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 68

…satisfaction of Assessing Officer. As the assessee failed to explain the source of deposit, the benefit of DTAA is also not available to assessee 7.7 Considering the facts of the case and relying on the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal [214 ITR 801], it is held that it is against the human probability to keep such a huge amount in cash. The order of the AO is, therefore, upheld. These grounds of appeal are Dismissed." As the facts are almost identical, following the decision in the case of DHEERAJSINGH OMPRAKASHSINGH MOHNIA, these grounds of appeal are Dismissed. 8. Ground of appeal no. 14:…

Swastik Securities & Finance Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1017/KOL/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) &Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…bruary, 2012 the membership of such stock broker was cancelled by NSE for various irregularities. Finally the AO relying on the principle of preponderance of human probabilities and the decision of Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) treated the transactions as non-genuine and disallowed loss of Rs. 56,67,177/- by adding the same to the income of the assessee vide order dated 10.11.2016 passed u/s 147 /143(3) of the Act by rejecting the contentions of the assessee that the transactions were genuine as carried out by the registered broker. Pertinent to state that the asse…

ITO Ward - 14(1), New Delhi vs. Kaka Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 5525/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: The Ld.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…e company fails to discharge its onus, the A.O. is within his legitimate right to make an addition: • CIT Vs Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. & Others (1997) 228 ITR 463(SC). • CIT VS Stepwell Industries Ltd. & Others (1997) 228 ITR 171(SC). • Sumati Dayal Vs CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801(SC). • CGT Vs Dr. George Kuruvilla (1969) 74 ITR 328(SC). ITO vs. Kaka Services (P) Ltd. • CIT VS Joseph John (1967) 67 ITR 74 (SC). • RB Seth Champa Lal Ram Swarup Vs CIT (1965) 60 ITR 493 (SC). • CIT VS R Venkataswamy Naidu (1956) 29 ITR 529 (SC). 5.5 In this context it will be relevant to state the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax A…

The DCIT, Morbi Circle, Morbi vs. M/S. Clayris Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Morbi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 287/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 287/Rjt/2018 With Co No. 28/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 D.C.I.T, M/S. Clayris Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., Morbi Circle, Vs. Opp. Soriso Ceramics, Morbi. B.H Fame Ceramics Pvt., 8A-Nh, Morbi.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R

Section 68

…ebtor to some other individual that too without charging interest. The AO in this regard also referred to the principles of human probability and surrounding circumstantial evidence as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sumati Dayal reported in 214 ITR 801. The AO also held that mere filing of confirmation and copy of ITR etc. of the share subscribers are not sufficient especially considering the facts that the share application money was not received through banking channel but the same was adjusted through journal entry. Further, the AO found that no detail regarding a sundry creditor, namely M/s…

Rukmani Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cir.-4 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

…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". 7.6 Similarly, in a later decision in the case of SumatiDayal 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 t…