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 367,585 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

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Sumati Dayal v. CIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle1-(1), Hyderabad vs. Gokul Krishi Udyog Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 99/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarvs. Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Gokul Krishi Income Tax, Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan Aaccg3283E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.A. Respondent By : Shri Kumar Aditya(D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 17.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda, A.M. : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dt.11.11.2020 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Dealer In Pulses, Food Grains & Manufacturer Of Besan. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 2.11.2017 Declaring Total Income Of 2 Rs.17,09,470/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices Were Issued U/S. 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) To The Assessee To Furnish Certain Information.

For Appellant: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya(D.R.)
Section 143(2)Section 68

…he corresponding period of preceding year, therefore, the learned CIT (Appeals) without appreciating the facts properly could not have deleted the addition. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT reported in 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR 801 (SC), he submitted that the learned CIT (Appeals) in the instant case is not justified in deleting the addition. He accordingly submitted that the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 8 8. The learned counsel for the assessee, on th…