“ human probabilities ”

82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court

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

1,579

139 Taxmann.com 352 · 2022 · High Court

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

443

Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT

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.

330 ITR 1 · 2011 · Supreme Court

PCIT v. NDR Promoters Ltd.

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.

410 ITR 379 · 2019 · High Court

CIT v. Sree Meenakshi Mills Rs. 73.5

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.

63 ITR 609 · 1967 · Supreme Court

426 (Rajasthan) 14. Woodword Governors India v. CIT

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.

253 ITR 745 · 2002 · High Court

Balbir Chand Maini v. CIT

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.

12 Taxmann.com 276 · 2011 · High Court

ITA 1392/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

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

Rishabh Jain, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, JCIT

ITA 1388/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

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 to controvert the evidence filed ... 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. Pushpa Devi Chopra, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 35(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Pushpa Devi Chopra -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-35(1), Kolkata Kolkata (Pan: Acapc 5615 K) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar For The Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.10.2018 Order Per J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(A)-10, Kolkata Dated 18.05.2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act ‘) Relating To A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S Srk Industries Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. CIT

ITA 1387/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

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 to ITA No.1388/Kol/2018 Smt. Pushpa Devi Chopra ... 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 where detailed finding were given are listed below

Smt. Sampat Devi Chopra, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Sampat Devi Chopra -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-36(3), Kolkata Kolkata (Pan: Acapc 5616 L) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar For The Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2018 Order Per J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(A)-10, Kolkata Dated 31.05.2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act ‘) Relating To A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S Srk Industries Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. CIT

ITA 1386/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

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 to ITA No.1387/Kol/2018 Smt. Sampat Devi Chopra ... 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 where detailed finding were given are listed below

Smt. Snehlata Chopra, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Snehlata Chopra -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata Kolkata (Pan: Acapc 5616 L) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar For The Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.10.2018 Order Per J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(A)-10, Kolkata Dated 18.05.2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act ‘) Relating To A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S Srk Industries Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. CIT

ITA 1384/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

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 to ITA No.1386/Kol/2018 Smt. Snehlata Chopra A.Y.2014-15 ... 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 where detailed finding were given are listed below

Keshar Dhanania, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 46(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Keshar Dhanania -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-46(4), Howrah Kolkata (Pan: Afppd 4295 J) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, Fca For The Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2018 Order

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. CIT

ITA 1383/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

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 to ITA No.1384/Kol/2018 Keshar Dhanania A.Y.2014-15 ... 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 where detailed finding were given are listed below

Rajesh Kumar Dhanania, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 46(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rajesh Kumar Dhanania -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-46(4), Howrah Kolkata (Pan: Advpd 0356 J) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, Fca For The Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2018 Order

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. CIT

ITA 1382/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

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 to ITA No.1383/Kol/2018 Rajesh Kumar Dhanania A.Y.2014-15 ... 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 where detailed finding were given are listed below

Rajesh Kumar Dhanania (HUF), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 48(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rajesh Kumar Dhanania (Huf) -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-48(1), Howrah Kolkata (Pan: Aahhr 6232 E) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, Fca For The Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.10.2018 Order

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. CIT

ITA 1381/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

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 to ITA No.1382/Kol/2018 Rajesh Kumar Dhanania ... 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 where detailed finding were given are listed below

Nidhi Dhanania, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 46(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Nidhi Dhanania -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-46(4), Howrah Kolkata (Pan: Bhapd 8643 J) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, Fca For The Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.10.2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(A)-14, Kolkata Dated 18.05.2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act ‘) Relating To A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. CIT

ITA 1380/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

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 to ITA No.1381/Kol/2018 Nidhi Dhanania A.Y.2014-15 ... 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 where detailed finding were given are listed below

Ram Pratap Dhanania, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 46(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ram Pratap Dhanania -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-46(4), Howrah Kolkata (Pan: Adnpd 2089 C) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, Fca For The Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.10.2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(A)-14, Kolkata Dated 21.05.2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act ‘) Relating To A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S Kailash Auto Finance Ltd.. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 250

Nirmala Dhanania, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 46(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1379/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Nirmala Dhanania -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-46(4), Howrah Kolkata (Pan: Adgpd 0724 M) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, Fca For The Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2018 Order Per J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(A)-14, Kolkata Dated 18.05.2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act ‘) Relating To A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S Kailash Auto Finance Ltd.. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. CIT

ITA 1269/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

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 ITA No.1379/Kol/2018 Nirmala Dhanania A.Y.2014-15 2 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 where detailed finding were given are listed below

Rekha Devi, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward - 2(2), Siliguri

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rekha Devi…………………………...……………...........…………..………………………………..….…….........Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane 2Nd Floor Suite-213 Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan : Aclpd 5130 D] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Siliguri…..……………………………………………..…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 25Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 5Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Siliguri, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 9Th April, 2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S. Unno Industries Limited. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

ITA 1268/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

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 transaction”. 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 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

Sunita Devi, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward - 2(2), Siliguri

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sunita Devi…………………………...……………...........…………..………………………………..….…….........Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane 2Nd Floor Suite-213 Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan : Adapg 0346 E] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Siliguri…..……………………………………………..…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 25Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 5Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Siliguri, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt.9Th April , 2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S. Unno Industries Limited. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

ITA 1226/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2015-16

Jagat Lal Jain, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward - 1(4), Siliguri

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Lakhotia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kalyan Nath, Addl. CIT

ITA 1218/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

appeal and the ld. CIT(A)-Siliguri, 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

Sneha Choudhary, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sneha Choudhary……………….....……………...........…………..………………………………..….…….......Appellant Room No. 308 3Rd Floor 30, Bentick Street Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aaahu 4655 D] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-36(2), Kolkata.……………………………………………..…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 4Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 5Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 28Th March, 2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S. Unno Industries Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

ITA 1217/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial 2 Assessment Year: 2014-15 U C Choudhary & Others HUF 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

U.C. Choudhary & Others HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 U C Choudhary & Others Huf...……………...........…………..………………………………..….…….......Appellant Room No. 308 3Rd Floor 30, Bentick Street Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aaahu 4655 D] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-36(4), Kolkata.……………………………………………..…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 4Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 5Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 28Th March, 2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S. Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

ITA 1201/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2015-16

Vireandar Barmecha, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kalyan Nath, Addl. CIT

ITA 1200/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2015-16

Vireandar Barmecha HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kalyan Nath, Addl. CIT

ITA 1199/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2015-16

Taruna Devi Barmecha, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kalyan Nath, Addl. CIT