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

Smt. Sudha Eashwar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 14 (3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2342/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2342/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. Smt. Sudha Eashwar, The Income Tax Officer No.23A, P.T.Rajan Salai, Non-Corporate Ward-14(3) K.K.Nagar, Chennai Chennai-600 078. [Pan: Alxps 0601 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Sumathi Venkatraman, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.Sumathi Venkatraman
Section 143(3)

…ven brokers who coordinated transactions were also unknown to assessee. All these facts give credence to unreliability of entire transaction of shares giving rise to such capital gains. ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, 214 ITR 801 is squarely applicable to case. Though assessee has received amounts by way of account payee cheques, transactions cannot be treated as genume in presence of overwhelming evidences put forward by Revenue. fact that in spite :- 27 -: of earning such steep profits, assessee never ventured to involve himself in any other transaction with broker can…

Subramani Suresh Kumar, Port Blair vs. I.T.O., Port Blair

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1674/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm ]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…te of search operation i.e. on 27.05.2011. 10. The Id. A.O. in the report filed has not deliberated on this vital finding of fact while submitting his report which is cryptic in nature. Reliance is placed on the Apex Court's decisions of Sumati Oayal vs. CIT [214 ITR 801] and also Durga Prasad More [82 ITR 540], while adjudicating the issue. 11. In view of the above, 1 have no option but to dismiss the appeal of the assessee The Remand Report of A.O. is rejected too.” 4. Aggrieved by the Ld CIT(A) order, the assessee is before this Tribunal. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. I note that the…

M/S Patron Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-10(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1614/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA No.1614/Kol/2019 M/s. Patron Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2014-15 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")"ी पी. एम.जगताप, उपा"य" एवं "ी ए.ट". वक","या"यक सद"य) [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President (KZ) & Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 1614/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Patron Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-10(4), (PAN: AAECP6165G) Kolkata. Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 14.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement 31.12.2019 For the Appellant Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate For the Respondent Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT, DR ORDER…

Asharaf Khan, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-47(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 1017/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Asharaf Khan, Vs. Ito, 3475, Gali Thele Wali, Ward-47(4), Bazar Bara Hindu Rao, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 006. Pan: Bbbpk4069C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Fareed Ahmed, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : .12.2019 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21St December, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-16, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.23,64,413/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Cash Deposit In The Bank Account On Different Dates.

For Appellant: Shri Fareed Ahmed, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…AO accordingly made addition to the total income of the assessee. In appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO by relying on various decisions including the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT reported in 214 ITR 801. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a small businessman and has made the cash deposits out of his sale proceeds and has withdrawn the money for purchase of goods as and when required. He submitted that the entire addition ma…

ITO-3(2), Indore vs. M/S Ocean Motors Pvt. Ltd, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 444/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2014-15 Ito 3(2) M/S Ocean Motors Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Indore Plot No.49, Commercial Mandi Vs. Near Cat Square, Ring Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aabc04536F Revenue By Shri Rajib Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri S. S. Solanki, Ca Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 .12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Revenue Pertaining To A.Y. 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Indore, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 22.02.2018 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 30.12.2016 By Ito- 3(2), Indore.

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…have any match with the sums provided as loans. (vii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the proposition laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 that "the courts and Tribunals have to judge the evidences before them by applying the test of human probabilities after considering the surrounding circumstances. In the present case all the creditors have M/s Ocean Motors Pvt. Ltd. ITANo.444/Ind/2018 immediately deposited cash in their account before providing loan to the assessee company and a…

The ITO, Ward -2(2)(2), Surat vs. Smt. Hansaben Bipiinkumar Kothari, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 613/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.613/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt.Hansaben Bipinkumar Kothari, Ward-2(2)(2), Surat. 806-C, Kanaknidhi Apartment, Timliawad, Nanpura, Surat. [Pan: Adgpk 1894 D] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Sreenivas T.Bidari – Cit-Dr

Section 131Section 143(1)

…s to prove the genuineness of the transaction lies upon the assessee which has upheld in the following cases also :- • CIT Vs.W.J. Walker and Co. [1979] 117 ITR 690, 694 (Cal.) • Sajan Dasand Sons V. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 435 (Delhi) • Sumati Dayal Vs.CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) and • Jaspal Singh V CIT [2006] 290 ITR 306 (P&H) • Dhanlaxmi Steel RE-rolling Mills 57 ITD 3612 (Hyd.) In view of the above facts, it is evident that the assessee could not discharge the onus of burden of the two persons from whom loan amount totaling to Rs.2,95,85,000/- (Rs.2,78,50,000 + Rs. 17,35,000) was taken by the assessee.” 7. On the…

Shri Kamla Prasad Kajaria, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 35, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1688/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Years: 2014-15

Section 143(3)

…efore them. They were entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of the recitals made in those documents … … 8. It is a well settled principle of law as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati DayaI 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 standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt has no applicability in determination of matters under taxing statutes. In the present case, it is dear that apparent is not the real as evidenced from the investigati…

Shri Rameshkumar Savalachand Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 5263/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodramesh Kumar Savalchand Vs. Ito-19(3)(1) Jain Room No.202, Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor Prop: M/S. Mahalaxmi Steel Industreis Tardeo 53/57, Bhandari Street, Shop Mumbai-400 007 No.4, 1St Kumbharwada Lane Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aacpj0692D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) &

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250(1)

…urden of proof, onus of proving is always on the person who makes the claim and not on the Revenue. While dealing with the issue of deciding the burden of proof, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal Vs. CU 214 ITR 801 has held that the apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not real and that Taxing Authorities are entitled to look into surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities. The Hon’ble court also held th…

Ramesh Kumar Savalchand Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 5679/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodramesh Kumar Savalchand Vs. Ito-19(3)(1) Jain Room No.202, Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor Prop: M/S. Mahalaxmi Steel Industreis Tardeo 53/57, Bhandari Street, Shop Mumbai-400 007 No.4, 1St Kumbharwada Lane Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aacpj0692D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) &

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250(1)

…urden of proof, onus of proving is always on the person who makes the claim and not on the Revenue. While dealing with the issue of deciding the burden of proof, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal Vs. CU 214 ITR 801 has held that the apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not real and that Taxing Authorities are entitled to look into surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities. The Hon’ble court also held th…

Economic Medical Stores, Hooghly vs. JCIT, Range - 1, Hooghly

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 118/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.118/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Economic Medical Stores Vs. Jcit, Range-I, Hooghly 23/1, Panchanantala Street, P.O & P.S. Rishra, Dist: Hooghly, Pin- 712101. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaafe8315Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Dutt, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 197Section 197(1)Section 40Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P. M. JAGTAP, V.P & SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.118/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Economic Medical Stores Vs. JCIT, Range-I, Hooghly 23/1, Panchanantala Street, P.O & P.S. Rishra, Dist: Hooghly, Pin- 712101. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAAFE8315Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Manoj Dutt, CA Respondent by : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 23/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement :11/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This assessee’s appeal…

Income Tax Officer-9(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Manish P. Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2397/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodito-19(2)(3) Vs. Manish P.Shah 2Nd Room No.218, Floor, C/O M/S. Microlink Matru Mandir Technologies, Office No.3, 3Rd 14Th Tardeo Road Floor, Mehta Mumbai-400 007 Mansion, Tribuvan Road, Off. Lamington Road Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aaeps4599J (Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

…rden of proof, onus of proving is always on the person who makes the claim and not on the Revenue. While dealing with the issue of deciding the burden of proof, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 has held that the apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not real and that Taxing Authorities are entitled to look into surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities. The Hon'ble court also held th…

Surinder Kumar & Sons HUF, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 890/DEL/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Raj Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 68Section 68oSection 69Section 69A

…Wing after detailed inquiry had found that Shri Sanjay Mohan Agarwal was an entry provider and has given bogus gift to numerous persons who were complete strangers. After relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumiti Dayal vs. CIT, 214 ITR 801 (SC) and catena of other decisions, he held that the gift received by the assessee is bogus. Accordingly addition was made u/s.68 of the Act. 5. On the issue of validity of reopening which was challenged before the Ld. CIT (A) on various grounds, Ld. CIT(A) has dealt each and every objections and has rejected the assessee’s contention. 6. On th…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Jaypee Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4266/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit Vs. M/S. Jaypee Financial Central Circle- 29 Services Limited New Delhi Fa-45, Shivaji Enclave, New Delhi-110027 Pan No.Aaacj2992B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 142Section 153A

…tion within relatives (‘Relative for this purpose would mean “Relative” as defined under the Companies Act, 1956). 7. Referring to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal reported in 214 ITR 801, he submitted that the surrounding circumstances and human probabilities should not be ignored by the taxing authority. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mc Dowell and Company reported in 154 TIR 148, he submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that no one can get way with a tax av…

ITO 5(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Balee Plastics P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both, the appeal of Revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7524/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 7524/Mum/2012 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) The Income Tax Officer Balee Plastics Pvt. Ltd., Ward 5(1)(2), Peninsula Business Park Bhavan, M.K. Road, B Wing, 13 Floor, Senapati बनाम/ Mumbai-400 020 Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Vs. (West), Mumbai-400 013 (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacb5172D प्रत्याक्षेप सM./ Co No. 16/Mum/2014 (Arising In Ita No. 7524/Mum/2012 For Ay 2009-10) Balee Plastics Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer Peninsula Business Park Ward 5(1)(2), B Wing, 13 Floor, Senapati Bhavan, M.K. Road, बनाम/ Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai-400 020 Vs. (West), Mumbai-400 013 (आपत्ति करनेवाला / Cross Objector) (प्रत्यर्थी/ मूल अपीलार्थी / Respondent/Orig. Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28.11.19 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.19

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, DRFor Respondent: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AR
Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69B

…69B from Rs. 4.50 crores to Rs. 3.00 crores, thereby allowing a relief of Rs. 1.50 crores to the assessee without appreciating the fact discussed in detail in the assessment order as well as reliance placed on the decision in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 3 | P a g e Balee Plastics Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.7524/Mum/2012 & CO. No. 16/Mum/2014 in these type of transaction direct evidence is not possible? 2. Whether on the facts, circumstances and in the law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in appreciating the fact that no coercion or threat was used while recording…

Santosh A. Patekar, Mumbai vs. DCIT 22(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 753/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Anil ThakrarFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40Section 68

…n nowhere seems justifiable specifically in the circumstances when the assessee failed to prove the claim by giving cogent and convincing evidence. The CIT(A) has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) wherein it has been specifically 6 A.Y.2011-12 held that any transaction where no direct evidence is available then the transaction should be inferred on the basis of surrounding circumstances and by applying the test on probabilities. Taking into account, all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the finding of the CIT(A) is…

Asst CIT 19(2), Mumbai vs. Pawankumar Nagraj Mehta (Proprietor: M/S.Rose Metals), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as the assessee for Asst

ITA 4889/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(3)Section 147

…rden of proof, onus of proving is always on the person who makes the claim and not on the Revenue. While dealing with the issue of deciding the burden of proof, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 has held that the apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not real and that Taxing Authorities are entitled to look into surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities. The Hon’ble court also held th…

Pawankumar Nagraj Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as the assessee for Asst

ITA 4043/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(3)Section 147

…rden of proof, onus of proving is always on the person who makes the claim and not on the Revenue. While dealing with the issue of deciding the burden of proof, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 has held that the apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not real and that Taxing Authorities are entitled to look into surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities. The Hon’ble court also held th…

Manvi Khandelwal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(4), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3212/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 68

…ntroduced bogus LTCG in its books of accounts by routing his own unaccounted income through tax evasion scheme. Ld. CIT(A) also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1972) 82 ITR 540, SumatiDayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC). On an appraisal of the material available on record and in the light of the contentions raised by the assessee and also the settled case law, Ld. CIT(A) reached a conclusion that the objective facts, evidence adduced, presumptions of fact based on the common human experience in life and surrounding circumstances would establish that the sha…

Pravin B Jain HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4788/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 68Section 69C

…tion of Rs 20,650/- has been made by the AO u/s 69C. 5.3 The genuineness of the assessee's claim of LTCG can validly be tested on the ground / principle of preponderance of human probabilities as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801). In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while declaring the transaction to be non-genuine, discarded a host of documentary evidences relied upon by the assessee. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Durga Prasad More (182 ITR 540) has held that evidences are not by themselves conclusive and the truth of the matter could be…

Vashulinga Finance Pvt.Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/811/2019HC Delhi15 Nov 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 115JSection 131Section 133(6)Section 68

…assessed to tax, but, assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of all the Investors as well as genuineness of the transaction in the matter. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 and in the case of Sumanti Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 held that "Courts and Tribunals have to judge the evidence before them by applying the test of human probabilities". If the said test is applied in this matter, it clearly established that assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the credits received in the matter, Thus, there was no justification for the Ld. CIT(A) to have deleted t…