← All Phrases

“human probabilities”

Judicial DoctrinesSection 68Section 682,056 judgments

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

Leading authorities on human probabilities

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.

PCIT v. Swati Bajaj
139 Taxmann.com 352 · 2022 · High Court
443
citing judgments

Tax authorities are entitled to examine surrounding circumstances and apply the test of human probabilities to determine the genuineness of long-term capital gains arising from the sale of manipulated penny stock, even if prima facie documents appear to support the transaction.

Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT
330 ITR 1 · 2011 · Supreme Court
73
citing judgments

An appellate order is perverse and unsustainable if it deletes an addition made under Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act by admitting additional evidence without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine or rebut it, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

PCIT v. NDR Promoters Ltd.
410 ITR 379 · 2019 · High Court
70
citing judgments

The assessee has the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of share capital and share premium subscribers under Section 68; merely providing documentation is insufficient if transactions are found to be sham, justifying additions.

CIT v. Sree Meenakshi Mills Rs. 73.5
63 ITR 609 · 1967 · Supreme Court
59
citing judgments

The tax authorities can look beyond the legal form of a transaction and disregard the corporate entity if it is used for tax evasion or to create a smoke screen. The assessee bears the burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions, and the true nature of a transaction is determined based on surrounding circumstances and human probabilities, not requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt.

426 (Rajasthan) 14. Woodword Governors India v. CIT
253 ITR 745 · 2002 · High Court
45
citing judgments

Reasonable cause, in the context of human action, is defined as a probable cause that would compel an ordinarily prudent person, acting on an honest and reasonably grounded belief, to conclude their action was appropriate.

Balbir Chand Maini v. CIT
12 Taxmann.com 276 · 2011 · High Court
45
citing judgments

When an assessee fails to establish the genuineness of long-term capital gain from share transactions, especially when share prices are artificially inflated, the sale proceeds can be added as unexplained cash credit under section 68. The 'human probability test' is a valid tool to assess the veracity of such transactions.

Judgments citing human probabilities

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralcircle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1464/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

light of the face value of the\ndocuments sighted by the assessee but also in the light of all the surrounding\ncircumstances, preponderance of human probabilities and ground realties. There\nmay be difference in subjective perception on such issues, on the same set of\nfacts, but that cannot ... observed that\n\"This, in our opinion, is a superficial approach to the problem. The matter has to be\nconsidered in the light of human probabilities\". Their Lordships further observed\nthat \"Similarly the observation by the Chairman that if it is alleged that these tickets\nwere obtained through fraudulent means

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 1463/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

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". As Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed, in this case, "it is true that an apparent must be considered real until it is shown ... light of the face value of the documents sighted by the assessee but also in the light of all the surrounding circumstances, preponderance of human probabilities and ground realties. There may be difference in subjective perception on such issues, on the same set of facts, but that cannot

Srinivas Chemmala, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

ITA 164/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Ms.S.Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Chintagumpula
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

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". 7.6 Similarly, in a later decision in the case of SumatiDayal v. CIT [(1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC)], Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected ... 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 alleged that these tickets were obtained through fraudulent means, it is upon the alleger to prove that

Sunita Sarda, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 71(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2215/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmansunita Sarda, Vs. Acit, Circle 71 (1), 5/5761, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 005. (Pan : Aanps7143M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Vidhi Mangla, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date Of Order : 14.05.2025 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 06.06.2023 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Has Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.09.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,42,000/-. The Department Has Received Information From Office Of Ddit (Inv.), Unit 6 (3), New Delhi On 06.03.2018 That The Assessee Has Taken Bogus Accommodation Entry Amounting To Rs.17,25,000/- During Fy 2010-11 By Trading In The Penny Scrip I.E. M/S. Global Capital

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi Mangla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

investor who has entered in investment fray to make quick profit. Even the assessing officer has applied the presumptions and concept of human probabilities to make the additions without there being any material against the assessee. 15 11 Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case ... respectfully follow the ratio of the above decisions. In this case also, the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) has applied the concept of Human probabilities and held the above said scrip to be a penny stock 17 without bring on record how the assessee is involved

Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited, Chhattisgarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 144/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D

case of Sumati Dayal v CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), wherein it was held that Surrounding circumstances and test of applying human probabilities "Though an apparent must be considered real until it was shown that there were reasons to believe that the apparent was not real in the case ... before a Court or a Tribunal. Therefore, the Courts and the Tribunals have to judge the evidence before them by applying the test of Human Probabilities. Human minds may differ as to reliability of a piece of evidence, but that sphere decision of the final fact-finding authority is made

Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited, Chhattisgarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/VIZ/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D

case of Sumati Dayal v CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), wherein it was held that Surrounding circumstances and test of applying human probabilities "Though an apparent must be considered real until it was shown that there were reasons to believe that the apparent was not real in the case ... before a Court or a Tribunal. Therefore, the Courts and the Tribunals have to judge the evidence before them by applying the test of Human Probabilities. Human minds may differ as to reliability of a piece of evidence, but that sphere decision of the final fact-finding authority is made

Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited, Chhattisgarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 142/VIZ/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D

case of Sumati Dayal v CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), wherein it was held that Surrounding circumstances and test of applying human probabilities "Though an apparent must be considered real until it was shown that there were reasons to believe that the apparent was not real in the case ... before a Court or a Tribunal. Therefore, the Courts and the Tribunals have to judge the evidence before them by applying the test of Human Probabilities. Human minds may differ as to reliability of a piece of evidence, but that sphere decision of the final fact-finding authority is made

Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited, Chhattisgarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 141/VIZ/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D

case of Sumati Dayal v CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), wherein it was held that Surrounding circumstances and test of applying human probabilities "Though an apparent must be considered real until it was shown that there were reasons to believe that the apparent was not real in the case ... before a Court or a Tribunal. Therefore, the Courts and the Tribunals have to judge the evidence before them by applying the test of Human Probabilities. Human minds may differ as to reliability of a piece of evidence, but that sphere decision of the final fact-finding authority is made

Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited, Chhattisgarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/VIZ/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D

case of Sumati Dayal v CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), wherein it was held that Surrounding circumstances and test of applying human probabilities "Though an apparent must be considered real until it was shown that there were reasons to believe that the apparent was not real in the case ... before a Court or a Tribunal. Therefore, the Courts and the Tribunals have to judge the evidence before them by applying the test of Human Probabilities. Human minds may differ as to reliability of a piece of evidence, but that sphere decision of the final fact-finding authority is made

Alka Rajesh Vanigota, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-52, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 229/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2017-18
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 6Section 69Section 69A

investor\nwho has entered in investment fray to\nmake quick profit. Even the assessing\nofficer has applied the presumptions\nand concept of human probabilities to\nmake the additions without their being\nany material against the assessee.\nPara 18. Therefore, we respectfully\nfollow the ratio of the above\ndecisions. In this ... case also, the Assessing\nOfficer and Ld.CIT(A) has applied the\nconcept of Human probabilities and held\nthe above said scrip to be a penny stock\nwithout bring on record how the\nassessee is involved in any of the\nscrupulous activities or directly linked\nto one of the person

Aakash Universal Limited ( Merged Entity Rajkiran Textiles Pvt Ltd), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 13(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands\npartly allowed

ITA 1197/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2010-11
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

allowances under the income tax act\nwere governed by the specific provisions of the act and not on\nassumption or presumption or on human probabilities test.\n5. The confirmation of share applicants, сору of\nacknowledgement of return of income, audit report, board\nresolution and compliance under the companies act duly

Kalu Ram Saini, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Jaipur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 222/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 69A

expenditure was made by him from the cash withdrawn from time to time, and that this fact also made his plea doubtful being beyond human probabilities. As regards sale of jewellery, Learned DR has pointed out that in respect of sale of jewellery payments were made in cash

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 9 Kolkata vs. P L Goenka HUF

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the substantial

ITAT/241/2024HC Calcutta06 May 2025

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

For Appellant: Mr. Tilak Mitra, AdvocateFor Respondent: None
Section 144BSection 147Section 260A

Sumati Dayal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), applied the test of 9 human probabilities as propounded in the said decisions and then completed the assessment and has pointed out that before finalizing the assessment a final show cause notice was issued

Pravin Narayan Attarde, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(1) Jalgaon, Jalgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 267/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.267/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawdiaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

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 Thus, the appellant has completely failed to explain the source of cash deposits in Axis bank account with credible documentary evidences. Therefore

Vtp Foods, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7 (3), Pune

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

ITA 2878/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 143(2)

expenses should not kept a large amount of cash in hand. It is for the assessee to prove the reasons for doing so. "Human Probability Test is one of the important tests in order to check the genuineness of the transactions. Applying the ratio in the "Theory of Human Probability ... facts and circumstances related to deposit of Rs.50,99,000/-on 18.11.2016 and that also during the demonetization period are against normal human probability. The assessee has not cooperated in enquiry by the CIT(A), which is evident from the non-compliance to the three letters issued as mentioned above

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-42(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jekin Enterprise, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed, and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3111/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3109/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3107/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Acit-42(1), Mumbai V/S. Jekin Enterprise Room No. 732, 7Th Floor, बिधम A 604, Prem Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, G. Block, Building No. 5, Bkc, Bandra East, Mandepeshwar Road, Mumbai-400051 Boriwali (W.), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafj0648R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 177/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 176/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 173/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024)

For Appellant: Shri Anant paiFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik
Section 147Section 250Section 68

applied to the additions made u/s.68 of the Act and once the source was explained, the primary onus was discharged then the theory of human probabilities and preponderance cannot be applied. The appellant placed reliance on the two decisions which are brought out supra in the submissions of the appellant

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax-42(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jekin Enterprise, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed, and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3110/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3109/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3107/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Acit-42(1), Mumbai V/S. Jekin Enterprise Room No. 732, 7Th Floor, बिधम A 604, Prem Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, G. Block, Building No. 5, Bkc, Bandra East, Mandepeshwar Road, Mumbai-400051 Boriwali (W.), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafj0648R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 177/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 176/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 173/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024)

For Appellant: Shri Anant paiFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik
Section 147Section 250Section 68

applied to the additions made u/s.68 of the Act and once the source was explained, the primary onus was discharged then the theory of human probabilities and preponderance cannot be applied. The appellant placed reliance on the two decisions which are brought out supra in the submissions of the appellant

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-42(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jekin Enterprise, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed, and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3109/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3109/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3107/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Acit-42(1), Mumbai V/S. Jekin Enterprise Room No. 732, 7Th Floor, बिधम A 604, Prem Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, G. Block, Building No. 5, Bkc, Bandra East, Mandepeshwar Road, Mumbai-400051 Boriwali (W.), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafj0648R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 177/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 176/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 173/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024)

For Appellant: Shri Anant paiFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik
Section 147Section 250Section 68

applied to the additions made u/s.68 of the Act and once the source was explained, the primary onus was discharged then the theory of human probabilities and preponderance cannot be applied. The appellant placed reliance on the two decisions which are brought out supra in the submissions of the appellant

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 42(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jekin Enterprise, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed, and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3107/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3109/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3107/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Acit-42(1), Mumbai V/S. Jekin Enterprise Room No. 732, 7Th Floor, बिधम A 604, Prem Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, G. Block, Building No. 5, Bkc, Bandra East, Mandepeshwar Road, Mumbai-400051 Boriwali (W.), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafj0648R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 177/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 176/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 173/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024)

For Appellant: Shri Anant paiFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik
Section 147Section 250Section 68

applied to the additions made u/s.68 of the Act and once the source was explained, the primary onus was discharged then the theory of human probabilities and preponderance cannot be applied. The appellant placed reliance on the two decisions which are brought out supra in the submissions of the appellant

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-42(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jekin Enterprise, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed, and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3105/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3109/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3107/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Acit-42(1), Mumbai V/S. Jekin Enterprise Room No. 732, 7Th Floor, बिधम A 604, Prem Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, G. Block, Building No. 5, Bkc, Bandra East, Mandepeshwar Road, Mumbai-400051 Boriwali (W.), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafj0648R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 177/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 176/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 173/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024)

For Appellant: Shri Anant paiFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik
Section 147Section 250Section 68

applied to the additions made u/s.68 of the Act and once the source was explained, the primary onus was discharged then the theory of human probabilities and preponderance cannot be applied. The appellant placed reliance on the two decisions which are brought out supra in the submissions of the appellant