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 68Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 142(1)Section 115BBESection 69CSection 69A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

price riggingcolourable devicepreponderance of probabilitybogus ltcgpenny stocksection 10(38)entry operatoraddition under section 68addition u/s 68genuineness of the transactionaccommodation entryshare application money

Judgments citing Sumati Dayal v. CIT

Sh. Ashok Kumar Porwal, Jhalawar vs. JCIT, Range-1, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 572/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 269SSection 271D

…her camouflage entries create an appearance of legitimate transactions in their books of account. The accommodation entry is itself an illegal act to aid tax evaders. 7.17 As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 80 Taxman 89/214 ITR 801 (SC), apparent must be considered as real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that apparent is not real, and that the Taxing Officers are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality. and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities. The explanation given by the assesse…

Sanjay Basudeo Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 25(1)(1), Bandra Kurla Complex

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed”

ITA 2398/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesanjay Basudeo Agarwal, Vs Ito, Ward - 25(1)(1), 1601, Kanchan Ganga, Kautilya Bhawan, J.P Road, Manishnagar, G- Block,Bkc, Andheri (W), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aabpa1748E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya.ARFor Respondent: Shri.UjjawalkumarChavhanSr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sanjay Basudeo Agarwal, Vs ITO, Ward - 25(1)(1), 1601, Kanchan Ganga, Kautilya Bhawan, J.P Road, ManishNagar, G- Block,BKC, Andheri (W), Bandra Kurla complex, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. PAN/GIR No. : AABPA1748E Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punmiya.AR Revenue by : Shri.UjjawalkumarChavhanSr.DR Date of Hearing 08.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement 21.12.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Cen…

Duxton Hills Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 7(2), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5407/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

…ssessing Officer. 10. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) have been carried away with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 but have completely ignored that no prudent person would convert his accounted money into unaccounted money by booking losses for which no benefit is derived. 11. The Revenue has grossly failed in bringing cogent material on record to demonstrate that the assessee has benefitted by booking the alleged bogus loss whereas material on record show…

Vinod Kumar Saraf HUF, Gorakhpur vs. PCIT, Gorakhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 112/VNS/2020[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Dec 2023AY 2015-2016
Section 143(3)Section 263

…stic transaction as genuine of their face value without enquiring about the incriminating material collected by the Investigation Wing and thereafter, he has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT reported in 214 ITR 801; Chuhar Mal vs. CIT reported in (1988) 172 ITR 250;Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills vs. CIT reported in (1954) 26 ITR 775 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd reported in (2019) 412 ITR 161/262. 5.1 In so far as the contention of the assessee that the conditions prescribed in Explanation 2 is not…

Gopi Krishna Vinod Kumar HUF, Gorakhpur vs. PCIT, Gorakhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 111/VNS/2020[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Dec 2023AY 2015-2016
Section 143(3)Section 263

…stic transaction as genuine of their face value without enquiring about the incriminating material collected by the Investigation Wing and thereafter, he has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT reported in 214 ITR 801; Chuhar Mal vs. CIT reported in (1988) 172 ITR 250;Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills vs. CIT reported in (1954) 26 ITR 775 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd reported in (2019) 412 ITR 161/262. 5.1 In so far as the contention of the assessee that the conditions prescribed in Explanation 2 is not…

Vishal Kanodia, Varanasi vs. PCIT, Varanasi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 85/VNS/2019[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Dec 2023AY 2014-2015
Section 143(3)Section 263

…stic transaction as genuine of their face value without enquiring about the incriminating material collected by the Investigation Wing and thereafter, he has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT reported in 214 ITR 801; Chuhar Mal vs. CIT reported in (1988) 172 ITR 250;Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills vs. CIT reported in (1954) 26 ITR 775 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd reported in (2019) 412 ITR 161/262. 5.1 In so far as the contention of the assessee that the conditions prescribed in Explanation 2 is not…

Sarvesh Kumar Agarwal HUF, Varanasi vs. PCIT, Varanasi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 252/VNS/2019[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Dec 2023AY 2015-2016
Section 143(3)Section 263

…stic transaction as genuine of their face value without enquiring about the incriminating material collected by the Investigation Wing and thereafter, he has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT reported in 214 ITR 801; Chuhar Mal vs. CIT reported in (1988) 172 ITR 250;Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills vs. CIT reported in (1954) 26 ITR 775 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd reported in (2019) 412 ITR 161/262. 5.1 In so far as the contention of the assessee that the conditions prescribed in Explanation 2 is not…

Anju Jhunjhunwala, Varanasi vs. PCIT, Varanasi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 198/VNS/2019[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Dec 2023AY 2015-2016
Section 143(3)Section 263

…stic transaction as genuine of their face value without enquiring about the incriminating material collected by the Investigation Wing and thereafter, he has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT reported in 214 ITR 801; Chuhar Mal vs. CIT reported in (1988) 172 ITR 250;Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills vs. CIT reported in (1954) 26 ITR 775 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd reported in (2019) 412 ITR 161/262. 5.1 In so far as the contention of the assessee that the conditions prescribed in Explanation 2 is not…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Advantage Fashion Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is also affirmed, and the Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is also dismissed

ITA 799/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Hon’Ble

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 147

…discussed above, why buy back prices was less then principals & interest without any dispute? This action of lenders & borrower cannot be explained by the principle of human probability. I rely on the decision of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT(1995) 80 Taxmann 89 (SC)/214 ITR 801 (SC). In fact CIT(A) has upheld the addition in case of other lenders in NH-8 deals mainly on the above ground that buy back price is much less then principal plus interest [Para 4. 4.1.28 of CIT(A) order]. In view of the above CIT(A) ought to have upheld the unaccounted interest paid to by M/s Vatika Ltd. in case of M/s SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. to…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Advantage Fashion Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is also affirmed, and the Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is also dismissed

ITA 798/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Hon’Ble

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 147

…discussed above, why buy back prices was less then principals & interest without any dispute? This action of lenders & borrower cannot be explained by the principle of human probability. I rely on the decision of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT(1995) 80 Taxmann 89 (SC)/214 ITR 801 (SC). In fact CIT(A) has upheld the addition in case of other lenders in NH-8 deals mainly on the above ground that buy back price is much less then principal plus interest [Para 4. 4.1.28 of CIT(A) order]. In view of the above CIT(A) ought to have upheld the unaccounted interest paid to by M/s Vatika Ltd. in case of M/s SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. to…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Advantage Fashion Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is also affirmed, and the Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is also dismissed

ITA 797/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Hon’Ble

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 147

…discussed above, why buy back prices was less then principals & interest without any dispute? This action of lenders & borrower cannot be explained by the principle of human probability. I rely on the decision of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT(1995) 80 Taxmann 89 (SC)/214 ITR 801 (SC). In fact CIT(A) has upheld the addition in case of other lenders in NH-8 deals mainly on the above ground that buy back price is much less then principal plus interest [Para 4. 4.1.28 of CIT(A) order]. In view of the above CIT(A) ought to have upheld the unaccounted interest paid to by M/s Vatika Ltd. in case of M/s SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. to…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Advantage Fashion Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is also affirmed, and the Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is also dismissed

ITA 796/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Hon’Ble

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 147

…discussed above, why buy back prices was less then principals & interest without any dispute? This action of lenders & borrower cannot be explained by the principle of human probability. I rely on the decision of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT(1995) 80 Taxmann 89 (SC)/214 ITR 801 (SC). In fact CIT(A) has upheld the addition in case of other lenders in NH-8 deals mainly on the above ground that buy back price is much less then principal plus interest [Para 4. 4.1.28 of CIT(A) order]. In view of the above CIT(A) ought to have upheld the unaccounted interest paid to by M/s Vatika Ltd. in case of M/s SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. to…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Advantage Fashion Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is also affirmed, and the Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is also dismissed

ITA 795/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Hon’Ble

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 147

…discussed above, why buy back prices was less then principals & interest without any dispute? This action of lenders & borrower cannot be explained by the principle of human probability. I rely on the decision of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT(1995) 80 Taxmann 89 (SC)/214 ITR 801 (SC). In fact CIT(A) has upheld the addition in case of other lenders in NH-8 deals mainly on the above ground that buy back price is much less then principal plus interest [Para 4. 4.1.28 of CIT(A) order]. In view of the above CIT(A) ought to have upheld the unaccounted interest paid to by M/s Vatika Ltd. in case of M/s SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. to…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Advantage Fashion Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is also affirmed, and the Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is also dismissed

ITA 794/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Hon’Ble

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 147

…discussed above, why buy back prices was less then principals & interest without any dispute? This action of lenders & borrower cannot be explained by the principle of human probability. I rely on the decision of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT(1995) 80 Taxmann 89 (SC)/214 ITR 801 (SC). In fact CIT(A) has upheld the addition in case of other lenders in NH-8 deals mainly on the above ground that buy back price is much less then principal plus interest [Para 4. 4.1.28 of CIT(A) order]. In view of the above CIT(A) ought to have upheld the unaccounted interest paid to by M/s Vatika Ltd. in case of M/s SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. to…

Shri Hareshkumar Jayantilal Mahadevwala HUF, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3)(1), Surat

In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 248/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Hareshkumar Jayantilal I.T.O., Mahadevwala Huf, Ward-1(3)(1), Vs. 145, Sarjan Society, Parlepoint, Surat. Athwalines, Surat, Gujarat-395001. Pan No. Aaahh 8541 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 254(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH (SMC), SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Hybrid hearing) Hareshkumar Jayantilal I.T.O., Mahadevwala HUF, Ward-1(3)(1), Vs. 145, Sarjan Society, Parlepoint, Surat. Athwalines, Surat, Gujarat-395001. PAN No. AAAHH 8541 R Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Ms. Chaitali Shah, C.A. Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Institution of Appeal 18/04/2023 Date of hearing 28/11/2023 Date of pronouncement 30/11/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal b…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Vijay Gupta, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 373/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.373/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer cuke Vs. Vijay Gupta 5 Ground Floor, Khailand Market, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:ABHPG 9894 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Sh. Ajay Malik(CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 12/09

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik(CIT)
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69

…all these documents The evidence emanating from the seized material and in this process, the Learned Commissioner ignored the Principle of Preponderance of Human Probability as elucidated by Honorable Supreme Court in the cases of Sumati Dayal versus CIT 1995 214 ITR 801 SC, and CIT versus 1971 82 ITR 540 SC. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal during the course of appeal proceedings.” 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the search and seizure action u/s 132 of IT Act, 1961, was carried out on 13.02.2020 at the residential and business p…

Balalji Lifestyle Realtors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3172/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3172/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Balaji Lifestyle बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-7(1) Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai. Vs. 118/120, Ashoka House Zaveri Baazar, Mumbai- 400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb0234H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. M. Porwal (Adv) Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 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)-49, Mumbai Dated 02.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature So Does Not Require Any Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri N. M. Porwal (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 288ASection 69B

…resented the introduction of the assessee’s unaccounted funds in the guise of share capital/premium and such a transaction was to launder its own unaccounted fund. And after citing the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (214 ITR 801) (SC), and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Major Metal Vs. Union of India (2012) 19 taxmann.com 176 (Bom), and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mcdowel & Co Vs. CTO 154 ITR 148 and Banyan & Berry Vs. CIT 222 ITR 831 held that Rs.2,85,50,000/- brought in the books of account of assessee on share capital/premium needs to…

Jitendra Udaylal Jain, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2042/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejitendra Udaylal Jain V. National Faceless Assessment Centre(Nfac) C/O. M/S. Alankar Jewellers Shop Delhi No.1 Municipal Building R.A. Kidwai Road, Wadala Mumbai- 400037 Pan: Aabpj5480E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Shri. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jitendra Udaylal Jain v. National Faceless Assessment Centre(NFAC) C/o. M/s. Alankar Jewellers Shop Delhi No.1 Municipal Building R.A. Kidwai Road, Wadala Mumbai- 400037 PAN: AABPJ5480E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri. Vimal Punmiya Department Represented by : Shri. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan Date of conclusion of Hearing : 11.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 24.11.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is…

Mahender Singh, Gurgoan vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5427/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Sh. Mahender Singh Vs Ito 702, Vpo, Jharsa, Gurgaon Ward- 2 (4) Haryana -122001 Gurgaon Pan No.Aqips2120H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Pramod Singhal, Ca Respondent By Sh. M. P. Dwivedi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/11/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Gurgaon Dated 11-03-2019 Pertaining To A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Grievance Of The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. The Ld. Ao & The Ld. Cit(A) Have Arred In Fact, Law & Circumstances Of The Case In Making An Addition Of Rs, 2687500/- Based On Wrong Interpretation & Application Of The Relevant Provisions Of The Law & Out Of Fixtures & Surmises, Therefore, The Order Of The Ld. Ao & The Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Needs To Be Annulled.

…hich the assessee has acted upon. No prudent person would keep substantial cash at home and still keep on withdrawing cash. The act of the assessee is against the preponderance of probabilities as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 and Durga Prasad 82 ITR 540. For example since the assessee had huge cash balance as on 01.04.2009. We do not find any logic in withdrawal of Rs. 3 lacs on 09.04.2009. This shows that the cash in hand shown in the monthly summary statement is inflated and without any basis as the only income of the assessee is rental income and is not doing any b…

Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 718/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…ow we come to Para no 78 of that decision where the decision of Honourable supreme court in ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023 A.Y. 2010-11, 14-15, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14, 15-16, 16-17 Mohan Thakurdas Guranani case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 80 Taxman 89/214 ITR 801 (SC) was considered. Honourable court held that :- “78. In Sumati Dayal, the appeals were filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission. On the aspect of burden of proof, it was pointed out that in all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies on the department to prove tha…