← 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

Manoj Kumar Gupta, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Gurgaon

ITA 2825/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 127Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 68

making addition of Rs 28,66,148 /- without appreciating that basis of findings of the lower authorities is “suspicion” and “human probabilities” only which is never converted to reliable and trustworthy material and entire assessment order is passed on sole basis of “borrowed satisfaction” and without any independent application ... summarized then crux of the same is astronomical long term capital gains earned by assessee defies common sense and is against the principle of human probability and surrounding circumstances which according to AO and Ld CIT-A in background of investigation conducted by investigation wing Kolkata casts heavy and serious

Smt. Rashmi Chandak, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

ITA 1527/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

appeal and the ld. CIT(A), had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transactions”. No direct material was found to controvert ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalistaion, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below:- Sl.No

M/S. Utkarsh Agrawal Family Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(4), Kolkata

ITA 1525/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

appeal and the ld. CIT(A), had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transactions”. No direct material was found to controvert ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalistaion, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below:- Sl.No

Saurabh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(3), Kolkata

ITA 1347/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

appeal and the ld. CIT(A), had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transactions”. No direct material was found to controvert ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalistaion, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below:- Sl.No

Jitendra Agarwala & Others, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward - 1(4), Siliguri

ITA 1041/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

appeal and the ld. CIT(A), had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transactions”. No direct material was found to controvert ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalistaion, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below:- Sl.No

Jitendra Agarwal, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward - 1(4), Siliguri

ITA 1040/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

appeal and the ld. CIT(A), had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transactions”. No direct material was found to controvert ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalistaion, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below:- Sl.No

Smt. Annapurna Maheshwari, Indore vs. The ITO-4(1), Indore

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

ITA 252/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

view of the Chairman in his dissenting opinion. In our opinion, the majority opinion after considering the surrounding circumstances and applying the test of human probabilities has rightly concluded that the appellant's claim about the amount being her winnings from races is not genuine. It cannot be said that

Shri Pradeep Maheshwari HUF, Indore vs. The ACIT 3(1), Indore

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

ITA 53/IND/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

view of the Chairman in his dissenting opinion. In our opinion, the majority opinion after considering the surrounding circumstances and applying the test of human probabilities has rightly concluded that the appellant's claim about the amount being her winnings from races is not genuine. It cannot be said that

Smt. Annapurna Maheshwari, Indore vs. The ACIT, 4(1), Indore

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

ITA 315/IND/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

view of the Chairman in his dissenting opinion. In our opinion, the majority opinion after considering the surrounding circumstances and applying the test of human probabilities has rightly concluded that the appellant's claim about the amount being her winnings from races is not genuine. It cannot be said that

Bina Poddar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 34(1), Kolkata

In the result all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2330/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 2328/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Naveen Poddar…....…………….…………….………………………………………………....….……..Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane 2Nd Floor Suite-213 Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan : Afzpp 9026 K] Acit, Circle-35, Kolkata…………….................................……..……………………....………..Respondent

Section 10(38)Section 250

appeal and the ld. CIT(A), Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below :- Sl.No

Priyanka Poddar, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 35, Kolkata

In the result all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2329/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 2328/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Naveen Poddar…....…………….…………….………………………………………………....….……..Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane 2Nd Floor Suite-213 Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan : Afzpp 9026 K] Acit, Circle-35, Kolkata…………….................................……..……………………....………..Respondent

Section 10(38)Section 250

appeal and the ld. CIT(A), Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below :- Sl.No

Naveen Poddar, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 35, Kolkata

In the result all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2328/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 2328/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Naveen Poddar…....…………….…………….………………………………………………....….……..Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane 2Nd Floor Suite-213 Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan : Afzpp 9026 K] Acit, Circle-35, Kolkata…………….................................……..……………………....………..Respondent

Section 10(38)Section 250

appeal and the ld. CIT(A), Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below :- Sl.No

Smt. Jyoti Daulat, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 35(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 941/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 941/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Jyoti Daulat.......…………….…………….………………………………………………....….……..Appellant 2A, Amratolla Lane 1St Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Advpd 7404 L] Income Tax Officer, Ward 35(2), Kolkata…………………..……………………....………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Halder, Addl. Cit, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 8Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 24Th , 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 69C

order relied upon “circumstantial 2 I.T.A. No. 941/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Jyoti Daulat evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found to controvert the evidence filed by the assessee ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below :- Sl.No

Sri Gautam Kumar Pincha & Sons (HUF), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 34(4), Kolkata

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 645/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 644/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sri Gaurav Pincha....…………….…………….………………………………………………....….……..Appellant Room No. 602 & 603 6Th Floor 19, Synagogue Street Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Afupp 1235 P] Income Tax Officer, Ward 34(4), Kolkata…………………..……………………....………..Respondent

Section 10(38)Section 250

appeal and the ld. CIT(A), Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below :- Sl.No

Sri Gaurav Pincha, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 34(4), Kolkata

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 644/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 644/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sri Gaurav Pincha....…………….…………….………………………………………………....….……..Appellant Room No. 602 & 603 6Th Floor 19, Synagogue Street Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Afupp 1235 P] Income Tax Officer, Ward 34(4), Kolkata…………………..……………………....………..Respondent

Section 10(38)Section 250

appeal and the ld. CIT(A), Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below :- Sl.No

Bipin Kumar Devji, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 34(1), Kolkata

In the result all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1128/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 1125/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sailesh Daulat……....…………….…………….………………………………………………....….……..Appellant 2/1A, Amartolla Lane 1St Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Afepd 6892 A] Income Tax Officer, Ward 36(3), Kolkata…………………..……………………....………..Respondent

Section 10(38)Section 250

appeal and the ld. CIT(A), Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below :- Sl.No

Smt. Shilpa Daulat, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(2), Kolkata

In the result all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1127/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 1125/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sailesh Daulat……....…………….…………….………………………………………………....….……..Appellant 2/1A, Amartolla Lane 1St Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Afepd 6892 A] Income Tax Officer, Ward 36(3), Kolkata…………………..……………………....………..Respondent

Section 10(38)Section 250

appeal and the ld. CIT(A), Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below :- Sl.No

Harish Daulat, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 34(3), Kolkata

In the result all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1126/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 1125/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sailesh Daulat……....…………….…………….………………………………………………....….……..Appellant 2/1A, Amartolla Lane 1St Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Afepd 6892 A] Income Tax Officer, Ward 36(3), Kolkata…………………..……………………....………..Respondent

Section 10(38)Section 250

appeal and the ld. CIT(A), Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below :- Sl.No

Sailesh Daulat, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(3), Kolkata

In the result all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1125/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 1125/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sailesh Daulat……....…………….…………….………………………………………………....….……..Appellant 2/1A, Amartolla Lane 1St Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Afepd 6892 A] Income Tax Officer, Ward 36(3), Kolkata…………………..……………………....………..Respondent

Section 10(38)Section 250

appeal and the ld. CIT(A), Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below :- Sl.No

Rukmini Devi Manpuria, Kolkata vs. DCIT(It), Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1724/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1724/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rukmini Devi Manpuria -Vs- Dcit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Axapm 3836 H ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

some entry operators. He found that the returns obtained by the assessee , though from the open market, appears to be unrealistic and beyond human probabilities. Accordingly he held that the LTCG claimed as exempt in the sum of Rs 74,86,600/- as bogus and added the same as unexplained