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

Ahan Apparel P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2230/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri G. Manjunatha, Am M/S Ahan Apparel Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit-9(1)(1) D-202, Sonmarg Apartment, Mumbai S.V.Mart, Malad West Mumbai-400 064 Pan/Gir No.Aaeca0983D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 131Section 68

…genuineness of transaction between the parties. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and also by relied upon various judicial precedence, including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs CIT (214 ITR 801)(SC) held that the assessee has failed to prove genuineness of transactions between the parties and also failed to offer any explanation for forfeiture of shares within a short span less than a year, therefore, the Assessing Officer was right in making addition towards amount received from two subscribers as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the…

Sheetal Infoservices Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-23(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4604/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4604/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Sheetal Infoservices Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, L-7A(Lgf), South Extension, Ward-23(2), Part-2, New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aamcs0742A Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2019

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 150(1)Section 68

…206(2014) DLT 97 (DB)(DEL) " CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) " Sreelekha Banerjee Vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 " Seth Kalekhan Md. Hanif Vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 " M.A. Unneerikutty Vs. CIT (1992) 198 ITR 147 (Ker.) " Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 " CIT vs. P. Mohankaia (2007) 291 ITR 278 " Vijay Kumar Talwar Vs. CIT (2011) 330 ITR 1 " Shri Hersh W. Chadha, (Legal heir of Late Sh. W.N. Chadha) Vs. DDIT, Circle-1(1), ITA No. I.T.A. Nos. 3088 to 3098 & 3107/Dei/2005 " CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 2 ITR-OL 68 (Delhi); (2014 206 DLT 97 (DB) " Meenakshi Mills Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 609 "…

Shri Rayjibhai Ramanbhai Solanki, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(2), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1202/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1202/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.Apoorva Bharadwaj, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148

…roperty, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source. In Sumati Dayal vs CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC), it was held that if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source of the credits in his books of accounts is not satisfactory, the amount can be treated as income of the assessee. In C.Kant & Co. vs CIT [1980] 126 ITR 63 (Cal), it was held that in case of cash credit entry, it is necessary for the assessee to prove not…

Gaurav Garg, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5716/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 132ASection 13ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69A

…s demanding repayment but did nothing on non compliance therewith.- such letters did not therefore carry any conviction about the explanation of the assessee. Loan amount was rightly held as assessee’s own undisclosed income. (vii) In the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801(SC) it has been held that, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the same may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory. In su…

Ms.Kantaben Bhogilal Kubadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-21(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1937/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ms. Kantaben Bhogilal Vs Ito-21(2)(1), Mumbai Kubadia, 801, Sun Shine Heights, 243, P.L. Kale Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-22 Pan : Aadpk8166G Appellant Respondednt

Section 10(38)Section 68

…res. The AO was also analysed the share price of the scrip in the BSE / NSE to come to the conclusion that it is a pennystock and after considering various judicial precedents including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC), observed that the receipts shown by the assessee from sale of shares of NCL Research & Financial Services Ltd was treated as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act, in view of the fact brought out by the department during investigation carried out at Kolkatta and also on the basis of statement of director of NCL Research & Financial Servi…

Sea Linkers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 8(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 2297/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2297/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ M/S. Sea Linkers Private Acit 8(1)(2), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Bpt, Plot No. 107, M.K Road V. Quay Street, Darukhana, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400010 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aahcs5084N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Deepak Tralshawala Revenue By: Shri. Manish Kumar Singh,Dr

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri. Manish Kumar Singh,DR
Section 143(3)

…evidence of purchases. In light of the overwhelming evidence, the Revenue authorities cannot put upon blinkers and accept these purchases as genuine. This proposition is duly supported by Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC). In the present case, the assessee wants that the unassailable fact that the suppliers are non-existent and, thus, bogus should be ignored and only the documents being produced should be considered. This proposition is totally unsustainable in light of Hon’ble Apex Court decisions. 14. In…

M/S. Satyashiv Shares & Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT= 8, New Delhi

ITA 2791/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charym/S. Satyashiv Shares & Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Securities Pvt. Ltd, Tax, M-11, South Extension, Part-2, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aancs5482Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. C Rai, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 131Section 133Section 139Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…at the said section is very widely worded and an Income-tax Officer is not precluded from making an enquiry as to the true nature and source thereof even if the same is credited as receipt of share application money." In the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC). Their Lordships held that a capital receipt can become taxable if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is not satis factorily explained. The judgment in the case of CIT v. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2008] 299 ITR 268 (Delhi) lends no assistance to the assessee because in that case the Divisi…

Sunil H. Tharwani HUF, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Kalyan

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1698/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133ASection 68

…rsons of company has rigged the share prices and the beneficiaries have booked bogus claim of long term capital gains exempted u/s. 10(38) of the Act. Thereafter learned CIT(A) referred to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs.CIT (214 ITR 801), CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Shri Sanjay Bimalchand Jain L/H of Shantidevi Bimalchand Jain (ITA No. 18/2017 order dated 10.4.2017). 5. Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before us. 6. I have heard both the counsel and perused the records. Learned Counsel of the assess…

DCIT- (It)-3 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. Venu Raman Kumar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2977/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G S Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit-(It)-3(3)(2), Venu Raman Kumar, Mumbai. Flat No.2, Hermes House –Iii, Vs. Worli Sea Face, Mumbai 400 025. Pan Abapk9122E (Appellant) Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V SreekarFor Respondent: S/Shri Vijay Mehta, Anuj Kisnadwala &
Section 143(3)Section 148

…evidence and, therefore, in our view, the CIT(A) made no mistake in deleting the addition. At this stage, we may also refer to the reliance placed by the AO as well as the CIT-DR on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [214 ITR 801] to defend the addition made on the test of human probability. No doubt, the test of human probabilities is an acceptable test to decide the genuineness or otherwise of a particular transaction. So, however, what is required is to weigh and consider all evidences and material which are available on record. Considering the facts of the instant ca…

Sanat Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle - 36(1), New Delhi

ITA 1881/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Senior DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 133Section 68Section 6A

…here, the decision of the final fact finding authority is made conclusive by law.” 5.2 I further find that the above ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reiterated and applied by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (214 ITR 801). It is essential on the part of the Assessing Officer to look into the real nature of transaction and what happens in the real word and contextualize the same to such transactions in the real market situation. Further, in the case of McDowell &: Co. Ltd.[(1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC)],the Hon'ble Supreme Court have observed as under: "Tax planning may…

Deepak Nagar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC-17, New Delhi

ITA 3212/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2015-16] Shri Deepak Nagar Vs. The A.C.I.T C-1/67, Safdarjang Development Area Central Circle -17 New Delhi New Delhi Pan No: Aaipn 5965 B [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 68

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER [A.Y 2015-16] Shri Deepak Nagar Vs. The A.C.I.T C-1/67, Safdarjang Development Area Central Circle -17 New Delhi New Delhi PAN No: AAIPN 5965 B [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 06.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 12.06.2019 Assessee by : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv Ms. Nisha Rochh, FCA Revenue by : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: With this appeal, the assessee has challenged the correctness of th…

M/S. R.P.K. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1401/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jun 2019AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)

…he 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". Similarly, in a later decision in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (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…

Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Madhuben Prakash Parekh, Mumbai

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

ITA 2079/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.2079 & 2080/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2009-10) The Income Tax Officer- बिधम/ Shri Madhuben Prakash Parekh 19(2)(3), Vs. C/O M/S. Prakash Traders 51, Room No.218, 2Nd Floor, C.P. Tank Road, Mumbai- Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, 400004. Mumbai-400007. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepp6219N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri R. Sindhu (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Rushabh Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 10.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11. Ita. No.2080/M/2018:- 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 10.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri R. Sindhu (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148

…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…

Paresh K. Shah, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 7374/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am

Section 132Section 153C

…orts the view taken by the lower authorities that the assessee was a part of a chain which facilitated providing of accommodation entries. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT, (1995) 214 ITR 801(SC), as per which the principle of preponderance of human probability can be put into service by a fact finding authority for arriving at the true state of affairs in a given case. In fact, the admission by the assessee in his „statement‟ recorded u/s.132(4) on 20.11.2012 that the documents pertaining to the aforementioned parties belonged to him…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Frontier Land Development Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5947/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Advocate

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘B’, NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No:-5947/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Income Tax Officer Vs. M/s. Frontiner Land Ward – 9 (3), Room No.413A, Development Pvt. Ltd. 4th Floor, C. R. Building D-293, Defence Colony, New New Delhi Delhi – 24 (PAN No. AAACF8742M) APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR Respondent by : Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Advocate Sh. Shailesh Gupta, CA Sh. Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Date of Hearing : 27.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 28.05…

ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Mukesh C. Sanghvi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2457/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri G Manjunatha () Ito-19(2)(3), Mumbai Vs Shri Mukesh C Sanghvi Prop M/S Rajendra Steel & Alloys Room No.6, Ground Floor, 79, 2Nd Pathan Street, 5Th Kumbharwada Mumbai 400 004 Pan : Anzps6511Q Appellant Respondednt

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 69C

…1 ITA 2457/Mum/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI Before Shri Sandeep Gosain (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Shri G Manjunatha (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITO-19(2)(3), Mumbai vs Shri Mukesh C Sanghvi Prop M/s Rajendra Steel & Alloys Room No.6, Ground Floor, 79, 2nd Pathan Street, 5th Kumbharwada Mumbai 400 004 PAN : ANZPS6511Q APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri DG Pansari Respondent by None Date of hearing 02-05-2019 Date of pronouncement 24-05-2019 O R D E R Per G Manjunatha, AM : This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-30, Mumbai dated 30-01-2017 a…

Rohit Jalan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2205/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2205/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

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

…1 Rohit Jalan, AY- 2013-14 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, “SMC” AT KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 2205/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rohit Jalan Vs. ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata. (PAN: AEZPJ1210L) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 20.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement 17.05.2019 For the Appellant Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate For the Respondent Shri Robin Choudhury, ACIT, Sr. DR ORDER This is an appeal preferred by the Assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 10, Kolkata dated 19.09.2018 for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Though the as…

Prakasho Devi Saria, Siliguri vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 3(1), Siliguri

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2360/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T. A No. 2360/Kol/2017 A.Y 2014-15 Prakasho Devi Saria Vs. Cit(A), Siliguri Pan: Agzpd611L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Lakhotia, ld.AR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…the genuineness of her share transactions on both purchase and sale aspects. And also even lack of cross examination to assessee in such circumstances does not vitiate the entire proceedings. Mr. Singh lastly quotes hon’ble Supreme Court’s decisions in (1995) 214 ITR 801(Sc) Sumati Dayal V/s. CIT V/s. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540(Sc) that assessee’s explanation has to be considered in the light of human probabilities by removing all blinkers. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. The question that arises for our consideration/adjudication is about the genuineness of assessee’s impug…

M/S.M.L.Realty, Mumbai vs. ACIT 22(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 795/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha, Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S M. L. Realty, Acit-22(2), Mumbai 411/A Sunder Villa, S. V. बनाम/ Road, Santacruz (W), Vs. Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaqfm3360H

Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 292BSection 68

…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." Similarly in a later decision in the case of Sumati Dayal V CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme court rejected the theory that it is for alleged 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 a alleged that these tickets wer…

Suresh Kumar Sarda, Mumbai vs. ACIT 18(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3597/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sampat Kumar Kabra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad, D.R

…36,89,465/-. The assessee filed reply dated 28.03.2015 before the AO thereafter, but the AO found the same as not tenable and finally framed the assessment by relying on the case of CIT vs. Durgaprasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 SC and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) by making an addition of Rs.14,89,56,190/- for artificial losses from circular trading from three parties namely R.K. Commodity Service Pvt. Ltd., Ashlar Commodities Pvt. Ltd. and Bhaijee Commodities Pvt. and also added Rs.40,06,684/- on the ground that a loss can not be allowed on a transaction which has not taken place and as all the buyin…