“preponderance of probability”

Judicial DoctrinesEvidenceEvidence547 judgments

The decision most relied on for preponderance of probability is Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801), cited in 1,967 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on preponderance of probability

Sumati Dayal v. CIT

214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court

1,967

citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Durga Prasad More

82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court

1,579

citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

CIT v. P. Mohanakala

291 ITR 278 · 2007 · Supreme Court

525

citing judgments

The Supreme Court emphasized that in the absence of concrete rebuttal by the assessee, circumstantial evidence holds significant weight, applying the doctrine of preponderance of probability, particularly when assessing undisclosed income or unexplained cash credits.

PCIT v. Krishna Devi

126 Taxmann.com 80 · 2021 · High Court

249

citing judgments

The genuineness of share transactions, particularly those generating long-term capital gains, cannot be rejected solely based on general investigation reports, third-party statements, or a mere increase in share price, when the assessee provides comprehensive documentary evidence, without the Revenue bringing substantial evidence to the contrary.

CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal

328 ITR 656 · 2010 · High Court

230

citing judgments

When faced with allegations of bogus long-term capital gains from penny stocks, the Assessing Officer must discharge the onus of proving that the assessee's transactions were not genuine. The assessee can rely on the principle of preponderance of probability, and the Revenue must present substantial evidence to establish that the transactions were a colourable device or that the assessee was an entry operator.

Mukesh R.Marolia v. Addl. CIT

6 SOT 247 · 2006 · ITAT

139

citing judgments

The department must substantiate its allegations of a bogus long term capital gain scheme; if not substantiated, the addition made by the Assessing Officer for purported bogus LTCG derived from the purchase/sale of shares cannot be sustained. An assessee's claim for long term capital gains exemption on share transactions should be allowed where documentation supports the transactions.

Delhi in Suman Poddar v. Income Tax Officer 99

112 Taxmann.com 330 · 2019 · Supreme Court

138

citing judgments

Exemption under Section 10(38) is not allowable for long-term capital gains arising from bogus share transactions involving penny stocks or manipulative dealings. The Income Tax Department can establish such a case based on the preponderance of probabilities where there is no genuine financial worth.

CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull

103 ITR 344 · 1976 · High Court

citing judgments

The assessee is not required to prove the source of the source of funds, nor the origin of the origin of the funds. The onus is discharged if the identity of the creditor and the actual receipt of money are proved.

Judgments citing preponderance of probability

ACIT Circle-20(1), Mumbai vs. Jayesh Umakant Manania, Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6588/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarjayesh Umakant Acit Circle-20(1) Manania Room No. 305, 3Rd Floor, 131-6, Mani Bhuvan Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Jain Society, Sion Mumbai-400 012 East, Mumbai-400022 Pan/Gir No. Aacpm0547J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Dr Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

third party, constituted relevant evidence when examined in the light of the surrounding circumstances. It was submitted that, applying the principle of preponderance of probability, the Assessing Officer was justified in concluding that the assessee had in fact made the cash payment of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-, and that

Surender Singh Sangwan, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-4, Sonipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1639/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Surender Singh Sangwan Vs Ito C/O-Kapil Goel, Advocate Ward-4, Aayakar F-26/124, Sector-7 Bhawan, Sonepat, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Haryana Pan-Bqsps5616M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Kapil Goel Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Rohtak/10489/2018-19 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee E-Filed His Return Of Income, Declaring Total Income At Inr 7,00,190/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued To The Assessee On 07.07.2017 & Duly Served Upon The Assessee. Thereafter, Notices U/S 142(1) Of The Act Alongwith Questionnaire Were Issued On 25.04.2018. In Response Assessee Has Filed Reply Which Were Considered By The Ao & The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 27.12.2018 Wherein The Total Income Stood Assessed At Inr 1,12,94,400/- By Making Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Towards Unsecured Loans Of Inr 1,05,00,000/- Received During The Year Under Appeal. Besides Disallowance Of Rs. 94,210/- Out Of Various Expenses Claimed Is Also Made.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

addition u/s 68 of the Act, the AO has doubted the financial capacity of loan creditors but such addition cannot be made on preponderance of probability and there has to be some evidence and substance in contention. The Assessing Officer has not brought anything on record to establish that ... addition u/s 68 of the Act, the AO has doubted the financial capacity of loan creditors but such addition cannot be made on preponderance of probability and there has to be some evidence and substance in allegation. The AO has not brought anything on record to establish that the sources

DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Ganesh Jagaji Modi, Mumbai

In the result, both the above appeals of the assessee and the Cross appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 78/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Dr. Prayag Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

bilateral acts rebutting the circumstantial evidences going against the assessee.. In the instant case as the assessee failed to do so, the preponderance of probability entirely went against it. Therefore, it was held that the books

Ganesh Modi, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the above appeals of the assessee and the Cross appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 77/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Dr. Prayag Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Ganesh J Modi, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the above appeals of the assessee and the Cross appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 76/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Dr. Prayag Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Shri Jaya Pradeep, Chennai

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

ITA 960/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

more than 80% of the alleged cash payment. The AR strongly contended that in any Real Estate dealings it is beyond preponderance of probability that no cash could have been paid in connection with the sale after the date of registration. :17-: ITA. No.:960Chny/2025 In the loose sheet ... property would be transferred first and consideration would be paid thereafter, especially in cash. Such a proposition is beyond the test of preponderance of probability. Further, pages 24 to 26 of the seized loose sheets mention an extent of 15.00 acres, whereas the assessee has, in fact, purchased only

DCIT - 19(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers vs. Dishant Deepak Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4281/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh

Section 10(38)Section 68Section 69C

conduct and evidence, applying the test of human conduct and evidence, applying the test of human conduct and 7 Mr. Dishant Deepak Shah preponderance of probability, the AO has concluded that, preponderance o f probability, the AO has concluded that, the apparent is not real, the financial transactions

ACIT, CC, Agra vs. M/S. United Farm Product Private Limited, Agra

In the result, appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 299/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhacit, Cc, Vs. M/S. United Farm Product Pvt. Ltd., 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002 (Agra) (Pan :Aaccu2505M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Shri Deependra Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 04.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kanpur – 4 Dated 28.03.2025 For Assessment Year2022-23 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “L. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. The Ld. Cit(A)-Iv. Kanpur Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.43,71,37,934/- On Account Of Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C Of The Act Incurred For Construction Of Plant At Mewat, Haryana, Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Company Itself Has Surrendered Amount Of Rs.41,40,35,700/- & Admitted To Take The Unexplained Expenditure At Rs.43,71,37,934/- Incurred In The 2 Construction Of Said Plant. Hence, The Addition Made By The Ao Is Based On Admittance By The Assessee, Which Is Corroborated By The Incriminating Material Found During The Course Of Search. 2. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A)-Iv. Kanpur Has Erred In Deleting The Addition. Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessing Officer Has Passed The Assessment Order After Thoroughly Examining & Analysing The Seized Material & Proper Appreciation Of Facts Of Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR

Section 69C

this stage should be on marshalling of the facts and putting them in chronological sequence with the primary focus on establishing the preponderance of probability. The Assessing Officer should make diligent efforts to detect the modus operandi and the manner in which the undisclosed income was generated by the assessee

ITO, Nashik vs. Ankit Naresh Tulsian, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2233/PUN/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 131Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

sale of shares (after amalgamation] of M/s KAFL which resulted in LTCG claim of Rs.19,51,000/-. Therefore, by applying the test of preponderance of probability, the LTCG cannot be disallowed without AO pointing out any infirmities in the evidences produced by assessee, which III1fortwlately AO could not point ... scrip namely, Mishkafin Finance and Trading Company from all charges. This shows that the additions made by the Ld.AO were merely based on preponderance of probability, but thereafter the SEBI has exonerated the scrip from all charges. Therefore, there remains no ground for doubting genuineness of LTCG claimed

Jainmati Jain, Yojana Vihar vs. ITO Ward 56(2) New Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4649/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandrajainmati Jain Vs Ito C-513, Yojanavihar, Ward 56(2) New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Agkpj4857G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Tanya, Adv Revenue By Sh. Om Praksh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025 Order

Section 68

evidence or material or any kind of prima facie inquiry cannot render the transaction as sham bogus. In such cases, even if preponderance of probability is taken into consideration, then also the material and evidence adduced by the assessee have to rebutted by some kind of tangible material coming ... doubt at all. In fact, the concerned amounts have been considered to be added by the AO on account of preponderance of probabilities and human behaviour. 13. A perusal of the impugned order of the ITAT would indicate that the additions in question have also been based on the statement

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik vs. Madanlal Lalchand Jain, Nandurbar

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

ITA 1572/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69B

purchaser Shri Kalpesh Babulal jain on oath is an evidence of third party and on evaluation of both the evidences, the preponderance of probability weighs more towards the third party evidence. There appears to be no cogent reason why Shri Kalpesh jain would give a wrong statement. 13.4 In view

Madanlal Lalchand Jain, Nandurbar vs. ACIT Central Circle 2, Nashik

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

ITA 1404/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69B

Madanlal Lalchand Jain, Nandurbar vs. ACIT Central Circle 2, Nashik

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

ITA 1403/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69B

Jsm Oilfields Services Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4093/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Jsm Oilfields Services Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, Farm No.14, 8Th Avenue, Radhey Circle-13(1), Mohan Drive, Gadaipur, New Delhi New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aabcj1500C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2025

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

addition u/s 68 of the Act, the AO has doubted the financial capacity of subscriber companies but such addition cannot be made on preponderance of probability and there has to be some evidence and substance in contention. The Assessing Officer has not brought anything on record to establish that

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Vijeta Lodha, Jaipur

58. As a result, the impugned order by Learned CIT(A) deleting the

ITA 390/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, C.A. (through V.C.)For Respondent: None

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

observations made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of documentary and circumstantial evidence and by applying the test of human conduct and preponderance of probability, and also various decisions by Hon'ble Apex Court cited therein. 20. Another contention raised by Ld. DR for the department is that while ... Officer recorded at page 35 of the assessment order that on the basis of analysis of documentary and circumstantial evidences, human conduct and preponderance of probabilities, it was established that all the financial transactions were sham and entire edifice was only a colourable device for evading due tax by resorting

Narendra Shantilal Bapna, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-28(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4198/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarnarendra Shantilal Bapna V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Flat No. A2501, Plot No. R3 बनाम 28(2)(3) B Emerald Bay, Sector 14, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Nerul, Navi Mumbai – Station Complex, Vashi, Navi 400 706, Maharashtra Mumbai– 400703, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aclpb8458J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.DR)

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

compliance with section 142(3) has not been met. 11. As already noted above, ld. Assessing Officer has referred to the theory of preponderance of probability which according to us is applied to weigh the evidence of either side and draw a conclusion in favour of a party which

Tarun Sharda Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (in Situ) Circle-I, Ludhiana vs. Sharmanji Yarns Private Limited, Ludhiana

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 340/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.340/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Jcit (In Situ) M/S Sharmanji Yarns Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1 बनाम/ Village Lakhowal Road Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Kohara, Jandiali Vs. Ludhiana – 141001 Ludhiana - 141112 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcs-6629-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.331/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S Sharmanji Yarns Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Circle-1 बनाम/ Village Lakhowal Road Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Kohara, Jandiali Ludhiana – 141001 Vs. Ludhiana - 141112 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcs-6629-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit)(Virtual) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT)(Virtual) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)

present such bogus purchases as genuine on paper. Several inconsistencies were noted in the assessee’s submissions. By applying the theory of preponderance of probability as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) and Sumati Dayal

Sharmanji Yarns Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Ludhiana

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 331/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT)(Virtual) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)

Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. PCIT - 1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

observed that the assessee is a quasi-judicial process and in quasi-judicial process, one has to go by degree of preponderance of probability, whereas in judicial process, degree of proof required is beyond reasonable doubt. Revenue is required to take a call whether in such cases, enquiries

Income Tax Officer Ward 29(1), New Delhi vs. Sahil Jain, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1452/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Sh. Sahil Jain, Income Tax Officer, Ward-29(1), 117, Engineering Enclave, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi Pan: Afspj1105L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 80J

other source of income of the assessee is there on record either disclosed by the assessee or unearthed by the Revenue. The preponderance of probability therefore is that the debtors were sourced from the business of the assessee. Therefore, there is no question of treating it as deemed income from