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 367,515 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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi

ITA 5333/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 5330/Del/2016 :Asstt. Year: 2007-08 ITA No. 5332/Del/2016:Asstt. Year: 2009-10 ITA No. 5333/Del/2016 :Asstt. Year: 2010-11 ITA No. 5334/Del/2016 :Asstt. Year: 2011-12 ITA No. 5335/Del/2016 :Asstt. Year: 2012-13 ACIT, Vs Sh. Parminder Singh Kalra, Central Circle-14, A-29, Friends Colony, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110065 (APPELLANTT (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAJPK2441E With CO No. 342/Del/2016 :Asstt. Year: 2009-10 CO No. 343/Del/2016 :Asstt. Year: 2010-11 CO…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi

ITA 5332/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 153A

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi

ITA 5330/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 153A

Paraminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4576/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 153A

Paraminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4575/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 153A

M/S Namdhari Industrial Traders Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Ludhiana

ITA 917/CHANDI/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Mukhi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl.CIT

Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

…ctors of the said company. 13. The Ld. DR further submitted that since the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the said order by following the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR further submitted that the Hon'ble P&H in the case of Smt. Shanta Devi Vs. CIT [1998] 171 ITR 532 (P&H) and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 119, have held that the initial onus is upon the assessee to estab…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Mr Gurcharan Singh, Delhi

In the result appeal of the Id

ITA 133/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaa N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Acit, Shri Gurcharan Singh, Vs. 646, 1St Floor, Circle-47(1), Gali Ganteshwar, Katra Neel, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi. Delhi - 110 006. Pan: Atbps9241F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Negi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 197Section 40

…on which TDS is deducted can be allowed when the assessee has failed to prove genuineness of the transaction? Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Dass More 82 ITR 540 and in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC). 4. Whether the Ld.C!T(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs.3,47,232/- made on a/c of interest on investment made, when the assessee had not sufficient interest free funds available? 5. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) was correct in facts and circumstances of the case and in law in deleting the addition on above accounts. ? ” Brief facts of…

M/S Shiva Shakti Enclaves Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Range 7(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 629/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Shiva Shakti Vs. Dcit Central Enclaves Pvt Ltd., Range 7(3) 203/204 Raigad R.No. 655, 6Th Floor, Darshan, Opp Indian Oil Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Colony, Jp Road, Road, Mumbai – Andheri West, Mumbai 400020. – 400053. Pan/Gir No. : Aagcs5014B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon, Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 04.06.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -49 Mumbai, Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon, DR

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 274Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Shiva Shakti Vs. DCIT Central Enclaves Pvt Ltd., Range 7(3) 203/204 Raigad R.No. 655, 6th Floor, Darshan, Opp Indian oil Aayakar Bhavan, MK colony, JP Road, Road, Mumbai – Andheri West, Mumbai 400020. – 400053. PAN/GIR No. : AAGCS5014B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Vimal Punmiya, AR Respondent by : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon, DR Date of Hearing 15.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement 04.06.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The appeal is filed by…

Jai Deep Singh, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/JPR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (ACIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…these circumstances, even if the source of investment in land is not found to be satisfactory explained, no addition can be made in the peculiar facts of the case. In this regard, reliance was placed on the following decisions:- • Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) • CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC). 15. Per contra, the ld. DR has relied on the findings of the lower authorities and our reference was drawn to the findings of the ld. 19 Shri Jaideep Singh vs. ITO CIT(A) which are contained at para 6 & 6.1 of his order which read as under:- “6 Ground No. 4 relates to the addition of…

Jitender Kumar Gupta, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes”

ITA 1882/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sri Siddharth MantriFor Respondent: Smt. Kanika Agarwal,DR

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 69Section 69B

…ITA No 1882 of 2019 Jitender Kumar Gupta Hyderabad IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad SMC Bench, Hyderabad (Through Video Conferencing) Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sri Jitender Kumar Gupta Vs. A.C.I.T (HUF), Hyderabad Circle 7(1) PAN:AABHJ7446L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri Siddharth Mantri Revenue by: Smt. Kanika Agarwal,DR Date of hearing: 05/04/2021 Date of pronouncement: 27/05/2021 ORDER This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2011-12 against the order of the CIT (A)-3, Hyderabad, dated 20.11.2019. 2. Brief facts of the case are…

Bp Ferrium Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1741/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1741/HYD/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 BP Ferrium Industries DCIT, Circle-2(3), Private Limited, Vs HYDERABAD (formerly known as Godavari Exports and Imports Private Limited), HYDERABAD [PAN: AABCG3774H] (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, AR For Revenue : Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR Date of Hearing : 22-04-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 20-05-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : This a…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam vs. Hirapanna Jewellers, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 253/VIZ/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.253/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Hirapanna Jewellers Income Tax, D.No.48-19-5, Opp:Apsrtc Central Circle-1 Commercial Complex, Visakhapatnam Dwaraka Nagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaifh2606M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.02/Viz/2021 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.253/Viz/2020) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S Hirapanna Jewellers Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.48-19-5, Opp:Apsrtc Income Tax, Commercial Complex, Dwaraka Nagar Central Circle-1 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaifh2606M]

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonowal, CIT DR

Section 133ASection 68

…of Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540, wherein, Hon’ble apex court held that an apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real. The AO also relied on the decision of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). 4. Against the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and made written submissions and submitted that there was huge rush on 08.11.2016 for sale of jewellery not only in the assessee’s shop, but also in all the shops in Visakhapatnam as well as throughout the country, since, the citizens intended to liquidate the ol…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Hyderabad vs. Venugopal Reddy Chinta Reddy, Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 713/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara(Through Video Conference) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Chinta Reddy Venugopal Reddy, Ward 4(3), Hyderabad. 2-2-15, B-9, Flat 405, Bindu Prestige, D D Colony, Hyderabad. Pan Admpc5044P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Majumdar (D.R)For Respondent: Shri K.K. Gupta

Section 143(3)

…d appeared before the Assessing Officer has made it clear that their annual income was around Rs.5 lakhs each only as against alleged advance of Rs.32 lakhs and Rs.42 lakhs; respectively. Hon'ble apex court land mark decision in Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) held long back that any explanation under the provisions of the Act has to be appreciated in light of human probability after removing all blinkers. When we apply the same to his facts and circumstances of the instant case, it is very much apparent that even a single penny has not come…

M/S Bini Builders Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Range 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 630/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.630/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Bini Builders P. Ltd. Dcit-Cr 7(3) 655, 6Th Floor 203/204, Raigad Darshan बिाम Opp. Indian Oil Colony Aaykar Bhawan / Vs. J.P.Road, Andheri (W) M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 053 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccb-3447-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen – Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/04/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No.Cit(A)-49/It- 163/2017-18 Dated 17/12/2018 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 274Section 68

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष एवुं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.630/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s Bini Builders P. Ltd. DCIT-CR 7(3) 655, 6th Floor 203/204, Raigad Darshan बिाम Opp. Indian Oil Colony Aaykar Bhawan / Vs. J.P.Road, Andheri (W) M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 053 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ PAN/G…

Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 5(2), Jaipur

In the result, the ground no

ITA 307/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 May 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. M L. Borad (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

…ew of under mentioned reasons all these three cases are not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the appellant assessee’s case:- S.no Case Name Reasons of non applicability of these S.C.cases 1. SumatiDayal vs. CIT This case is under section 68 214 ITR 801 of the IT Act. 2. C. Vasantal& Co. 45 This case is related to ITR 206 (SC) applicability of evidence Act in relation to proceedings under the IT Act 3. ChaturbhujPanauj This case is related to land AIR 1969 255 (SC) acquisition Act passed on 23/07/1968 9 Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur i. That during the course of assessment procee…

M/S Moongipa Development & Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Range 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 627/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.627/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Moongipa Dev. & Inf. Ltd. Dcit-Cr 7(3) 655, 6Th Floor 203/204, Raigad Darshan बिाम Opp. Indian Oil Colony Aaykar Bhawan / Vs. J.P.Road, Andheri (W) M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 053 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aafcm-1616-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen – Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 19/04/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No.Cit(A)-49/It- 165/2017-18 Dated 05/12/2018 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 274Section 68

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष एवुं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.627/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s Moongipa Dev. & Inf. Ltd. DCIT-CR 7(3) 655, 6th Floor 203/204, Raigad Darshan बिाम Opp. Indian Oil Colony Aaykar Bhawan / Vs. J.P.Road, Andheri (W) M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 053 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ P…

Bishwa Nath Kharakia, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-34(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1487/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz)] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. No. 1487/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bishwa Nath Kharakia......................................……………………………………………………Appellant 39, Strand Road, Room – 68, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Afopk 1288 D] Vs Ito, Ward – 34(1), Kolkata...................……………………………………………….............Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 19, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 23, 2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata Dated 26.04.2019 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “I. That The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Income Tax Officer In Making An Addition Of Rs. 8,30,797/-, As Alleged Cash Credit, In Place Of Treating The Same As Long Term Capital Gain Earned By The Appellant On Sale Of Shares Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Learned Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Said Addition On The Alleged Ground That The Transactions Looked To Him As Unnatural & Suspicious In Nature. He Should Have Appreciated That The Shares Were In The Demat Account Of The Appellant For More Than 4 (Four) Years & There Was No Specific Adverse Information Against The Appellant From Dit (Inv.) Ii. That The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Confirming An Addition Of Rs. 4154/- U/S 69C Of The I.T. Act As Alleged

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 147iSection 148Section 68Section 69C

…titled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the fest of human probabilities. The same view was also expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. P Mohankala [291 ITR 278] held that the money came by cheque and was paid through the process of banking transactions was not by itself of any consequences. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the assessee had availed of bogus entry of Rs.8,53,125/- by way of transacting in sh…

Virendra Pratap, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 61(3), New Delhi

ITA 3486/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ranu Mukharji, Senior DR

Section 133Section 40Section 44A

…as 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 them by applying the test of human probabilities." In the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 Hon'ble Supreme Court has again given the importance of human probability and held that "The majority opinion after 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. It could not be said that the explan…

Satish Kumar Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 260/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ed to look into the details of the documents produced and make thorough investigation into the transactions to find out the actual motive behind it. It is well settled principle of law as laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (214 ITR 801) (SC) that the true nature of transactions have to be ascertained in the light of surrounding circumstances. It needs to be emphasized that standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt has no applicability in determination of matters under taxing statutes. It is also well settled that tax authorities are entitled to look into surrounding circumstanc…

Arun Kumar Goyal, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 458/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sibendu Moharana, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…red as real, but, if there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not real, as is the case under consideration as well, then the apparent should be ignored to unearth the harsh reality. 6.5) Similar view has been canvassed in Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). The question for consideration in that case was whether the assessee purchased winning tickets after the event. it was observed 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 pro…