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 367,181 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

ITO, WD-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Rishikesh Commercial Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1213/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2018AY 2012-2013
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…share capital and share premium received by the assessee during the year under consideration as unexplained cash credit by relying inter alia on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal vs CIT 214 ITR 801 and added the said amount to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) vide an order dated 09.03.2015. 3. Against the order passed by the A.O. u/s 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and after considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as the material available o…

Pankaj Kishor Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 966/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 966/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Pankaj Kishor Shah Ito-25(2)(2), बनाम/ 7/8, Neel Kamal, Pratyakshakar Bhawan, Roshan Nagar, Borivali (W), Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Vs. Mumbai-400 092 Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Acpps 1076 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Hemalatha N. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 05.03.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 21.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 30.12.2016 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: I. 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal) - 44 ("The Cit (A)") Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Without Affording The Appellant A Proper Opportunity Of Cross Examination.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Hemalatha N
Section 143(3)Section 234B

…aken as cogent 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 214 ITR 801 and Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. 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 above apex court decisions. 14. In these circumstances learned…

Indiamonds, Mumbai vs. ITO - 18(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6066/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6066/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Indiamonds Ito, Ward 18(1)(5), बनाम/ 17, Fulchand Niwas, Mumbai 25, Chowpatty Sea Face, Vs. Mumbai-400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafi 9602 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Saurabh Deshpande सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 01.03.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 16.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 21.07.2016 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2012- 13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Reads As Under: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.4,00,000/- U/S. 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On Account Of Alleged Unexplained Cash Credit.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande
Section 68

…come to grant the loans. Furthermore, there have been cash deposits in their bank account immediately prior to the granting of the loan. These facts cannot be ignored by the Revenue. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC), the Revenue has not to put upon the blinkers but has to appreciate the surrounding circumstances. On the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, there is no infirmity in the order of the authorities below. Accordingly, I uphold the same. 6. In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in th…

Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-4(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3006/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘जी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member ITA NOs.2313 to 2315/Mum/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 DCIT-4(3)(2), M/s. Vipul Impex & Room No.649, Infrabuild Ltd., 140-K, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Cavel Cross Line No. 7, Vs. M. K. Road, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai 400002. (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.AACJ1970D ITA NOs.3004 TO 3006/Mum/2016 Assessment Yea…

Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-4(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3005/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘जी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member ITA NOs.2313 to 2315/Mum/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 DCIT-4(3)(2), M/s. Vipul Impex & Room No.649, Infrabuild Ltd., 140-K, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Cavel Cross Line No. 7, Vs. M. K. Road, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai 400002. (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.AACJ1970D ITA NOs.3004 TO 3006/Mum/2016 Assessment Yea…

Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-4(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3004/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘जी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member ITA NOs.2313 to 2315/Mum/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 DCIT-4(3)(2), M/s. Vipul Impex & Room No.649, Infrabuild Ltd., 140-K, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Cavel Cross Line No. 7, Vs. M. K. Road, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai 400002. (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.AACJ1970D ITA NOs.3004 TO 3006/Mum/2016 Assessment Yea…

S. Gupta & Co., Jaipur vs. ITO 12(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2949/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2949/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) M/S. S. Gupta & Co. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(2)(1), बनाम/ Metro House, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai M. G. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafs 4486 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. L. Poddar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin

For Appellant: Shri S. L. PoddarFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…aken as cogent 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 214 ITR 801 and Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. 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 above apex court decisions. 9 M/s. S. Gupta & Co 13. In these…

Dilip C. Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir -11, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 287/MUM/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)

…accounts as unexplained income of the assessee. 30. The CIT(A) after considering relevant facts and also relying upon a plethora of judgements including the decision of Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) wherein it was held that apparent must be considered real unless 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 ITA No.281 to 287/Mum/2016 37 Dilip C. Shah find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the te…

Dilip C. Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir -11, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 286/MUM/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)

…accounts as unexplained income of the assessee. 30. The CIT(A) after considering relevant facts and also relying upon a plethora of judgements including the decision of Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) wherein it was held that apparent must be considered real unless 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 ITA No.281 to 287/Mum/2016 37 Dilip C. Shah find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the te…

Dilip C. Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir -11, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 285/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)

…accounts as unexplained income of the assessee. 30. The CIT(A) after considering relevant facts and also relying upon a plethora of judgements including the decision of Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) wherein it was held that apparent must be considered real unless 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 ITA No.281 to 287/Mum/2016 37 Dilip C. Shah find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the te…

Dilip C. Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir -11, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 284/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)

…accounts as unexplained income of the assessee. 30. The CIT(A) after considering relevant facts and also relying upon a plethora of judgements including the decision of Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) wherein it was held that apparent must be considered real unless 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 ITA No.281 to 287/Mum/2016 37 Dilip C. Shah find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the te…

Dilip C. Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir -11, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 283/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)

…accounts as unexplained income of the assessee. 30. The CIT(A) after considering relevant facts and also relying upon a plethora of judgements including the decision of Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) wherein it was held that apparent must be considered real unless 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 ITA No.281 to 287/Mum/2016 37 Dilip C. Shah find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the te…

Dilip C. Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir -11, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 282/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)

…accounts as unexplained income of the assessee. 30. The CIT(A) after considering relevant facts and also relying upon a plethora of judgements including the decision of Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) wherein it was held that apparent must be considered real unless 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 ITA No.281 to 287/Mum/2016 37 Dilip C. Shah find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the te…

Dilip C. Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir -11, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 281/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)

…accounts as unexplained income of the assessee. 30. The CIT(A) after considering relevant facts and also relying upon a plethora of judgements including the decision of Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) wherein it was held that apparent must be considered real unless 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 ITA No.281 to 287/Mum/2016 37 Dilip C. Shah find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the te…

DCIT Cir. 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2315/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘जी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member ITA NOs.2313 to 2315/Mum/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 DCIT-4(3)(2), M/s. Vipul Impex & Room No.649, Infrabuild Ltd., 140-K, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Cavel Cross Line No. 7, Vs. M. K. Road, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai 400002. (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.AACJ1970D ITA NOs.3004 TO 3006/Mum/2016 Assessment Yea…

DCIT Cir. 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2314/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘जी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member ITA NOs.2313 to 2315/Mum/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 DCIT-4(3)(2), M/s. Vipul Impex & Room No.649, Infrabuild Ltd., 140-K, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Cavel Cross Line No. 7, Vs. M. K. Road, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai 400002. (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.AACJ1970D ITA NOs.3004 TO 3006/Mum/2016 Assessment Yea…

DCIT Cir. 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2313/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘जी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member ITA NOs.2313 to 2315/Mum/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 DCIT-4(3)(2), M/s. Vipul Impex & Room No.649, Infrabuild Ltd., 140-K, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Cavel Cross Line No. 7, Vs. M. K. Road, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai 400002. (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.AACJ1970D ITA NOs.3004 TO 3006/Mum/2016 Assessment Yea…

Vidya Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO Inl. Taxation Ward 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2016/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2016/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mrs.Vijaya Prabha, JCITFor Respondent: 15.05.2018
Section 10(38)Section 68

…is manipulated transaction in collusion with the brokers to paint creditworthiness to the transaction and claim exemption :- 9 -: u/s. 10(38). This is in accordance with the ratio laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sumati Dayal Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, 214 ITR 801(SC), that “ the apparent must be considered the real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real and that the taxing authorities 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. (See : CIT v…

ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Babulal U Munot, Mumbai

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

ITA 4506/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4506/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Ito-19(1)(2), Mumbai, बिधम/ Shri Babulal U Munot 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Prop. M/S. Steel Samrat Vs. (India) Flat No. 1901-A, 19Th Tardeo Road, Mumbai- 400007 Floor, Shreepati Tower, A Wing, Tatya Gharpure Path, Girgaon Mumbai-04 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aftpm5429H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri T. A. Khan (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.03.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.05.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “(1) Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Addition To The Extent Of 7.5% Of Non-Genuine Purchase Claimed By The Assessee A.Y.2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. A. Khan (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69C

…can consider probabilities property arising from the facts alleged or proved and by doing so the Tribunal does not indulge conjectures, surmises or suspicions. The Apex Court expressed a similar view in the case of Sumati Dayal v, CIT 14 A.Y.2010-11 F1995] 214 ITR 801 / SO Taxman 89 (SC) and held that the decision of an adjudicating body based on surrounding circumstances and human probabilities is not bad in taw and deserves to be upheld, tri the case or McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTQ [1985] 154 ITR 148 /22 Taxman 11, the -Apex Court held that colorable devices are not part of legitimate tax planning. Going by th…

ITO, Ludhiana vs. Sh. Pardeep Aggarwal, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1138/CHANDI/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh
Section 10(38)Section 68

…of appeal raised in the present appeal. Fi rstly, 20 there is a mention of applying the test of human probabilities as propounded in the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1985) 214 ITR 801. We are aware of the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and we humbly bow down before the same. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the face of numerous documentary evidences crying for bonafide of the assessee as against only suspicion and surmises in favour of the Department, we do not hesitate to hold…