← All Phrases

“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
97
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

Assistant Commissioner-19(1), Mumbai vs. Kdm Impex, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed, in terms of our

ITA 3040/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3040/Mum/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-19(1), Mumbai ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Kdm Impex 506, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbag, Mumbai-400 012 Pan : Aadfk2444F ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 2 Acit-19(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Kdm Impex

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 37Section 68

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is right in not considering the preponderance of probabilities being against the assessee even when it is an established principle by Hon'ble Apex Court in various such cases including that of Sumati ... held that direct proof of such meeting of mind elsewhere would rarely be forth coming and therefore the test is one of the preponderance of probabilities so far as the adjudication of a civil liability arising out of violation of the Act or to the Regulations. Further it was held

DCIT, Central Circle-4, Surat vs. Ekkta Devlopers, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals are dismissed

ITA 577/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.576 & 577/Srt/2024 (Ays:2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Dcit, Vs. M/S Ekkta Developers, Central Circle – 4, B-702, Business Point, S. V. Road, Surat Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefe5374R (Appellant) (Respondent) Co Nos.38 & 37/Srt/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.576 & 577/Srt/2024) (Ays: 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/S Ekkta Developers, Vs. Dcit, B-702, Business Point, S. V. Road, Central Circle – 4, Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400058 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3969P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ca Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/08/2025

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 69BSection 69C

erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer ignoring the principles of "Human Probability Test" i.e. preponderance of probabilities which is applicable for Income Tax proceedings. 6) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A)- 4, Surat ought ... Considering all these facts, the ground No.4 is dismissed. 12. Ground No.5 is regarding applicability of the principles of human probability test and preponderance of probability, which are applicable to Income-tax proceedings. There is no dispute that technical rules of evidence and pleadings are not applicable to Income

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Tirupati Developers, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue and CO of the assessee are

ITA 2165/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2165/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13) Dcit Cc – 7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 V/S. बनाम M/S. Tirupati Developers. 419, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Industrial Estate, New Link Road, Andheri (W.), Mumbai-400053 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeft6810B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रति आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 110/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2165/Mum/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13) M/S. Tirupati Developers. V/S. Dcit Cc – 7(3), 419, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi बनाम Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Industrial Estate, New Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Link Road, Andheri (W.), Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400053 Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeft6810B निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Rushabh Mehta राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Biswanath Das सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 18.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21.07.2025 Page 2

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

that the retraction of statement is only an afterthought and the AO was correct in the treatment of the unsecured loans considering the preponderance of probability.." 3. The assessee has raised the following ground of cross objections: “1. (a) The Id. CIT(A) erred in facts and law in dismissing

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Subbiah Nadar Jegatheesan, Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 603/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:603/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Subbiah Nadar Jegatheesan, Tax, Vs. 3, Ml Theri Road, Keeraikaranthattu, Central Circle -2, Mahadevankulam, Madurai. Tirunelveli – 627 657. [Pan:Abxpj-7672-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2025

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 68Section 69A

explanation. One should not consider and reject an explanation as concocted and contrived by applying prudent man's behaviour test. Principle of preponderance of probability as a test is to be applied and is sufficient to discharge onus. Probability means likelihood of anything to be true. Probability refers to appearance ... Evidence can be oral and cannot be discarded on this ground. Assessment order and the appellate orders fall foul and have disregarded the preponderance of probability test.” 36. Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case and the ratio decidendi laid down in the aforementioned judgments is directly