SumatiDayal v. CIT

113 ITR 522High Court1978#2837 most cited

What is SumatiDayal v. CIT authority for?

When an assessee fails to discharge the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of cash credits under Section 68, the Assessing Officer is justified in making an addition to income. Appellate authorities also possess the power to admit additional evidence during appeal proceedings, as the Evidence Act does not apply to their proceedings.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Sumati Dayal v. CIT · R Dalmia v. CIT · 113 ITR 522 · Section 68 Income Tax Act · cash credits onus of proof · assessee's burden · identity creditworthiness genuineness · admission of additional evidence · Section 251 Income Tax Act · unexplained money addition · appellate tribunal powers

Issues it is cited on

section 31paper companysection 251(2)share capital and share premiumsource of sourcecreditworthiness of the creditorsection 251(1)(a)live linkadmission of additional evidenceentry operatorshare application moneyaddition u/s 68

Judgments citing SumatiDayal v. CIT

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hewlett Packard (India) Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 934 / 2007HC Delhi31 Mar 2008

…r appears to have been accepted by the Revenue and, therefore, the entire exercise in this regard has become academic. - 6. Even otherwise, out attention has been drawn to a decision of this Court in *R. Dalmia v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)*, [1978] 113 ITR 522 wherein this Court held that it is entirely for the Tribunal to decide whether to admit additional evidence or not. The Tribunal has a discretion in doing so and no question of law would arise if additional evidence was led provided the Tribunal had not acted on any wrong principle. - 7. Nothing has been shown to us to suggest that in the present…