← 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

ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Babulal U Munot, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4506/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4506/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Ito-19(1)(2), Mumbai, बिधम/ Shri Babulal U Munot 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Prop. M/S. Steel Samrat Vs. (India) Flat No. 1901-A, 19Th Tardeo Road, Mumbai- 400007 Floor, Shreepati Tower, A Wing, Tatya Gharpure Path, Girgaon Mumbai-04 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aftpm5429H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri T. A. Khan (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.03.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.05.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “(1) Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Addition To The Extent Of 7.5% Of Non-Genuine Purchase Claimed By The Assessee A.Y.2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. A. Khan (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69C

Taxman 89 to held that evidence produced must be analysed by applying theory of surrounding circumstances and human probabilities - Assesses alleged that without bringing said case to notice of parties, revenue had caused prejudice fo its case; af! in violation of principles of nstural justice and of rule 11 - Whether ... A.Y.2010-11 F1995] 214 ITR 801 / SO Taxman 89 (SC) and held that the decision of an adjudicating body based on surrounding circumstances and human probabilities is not bad in taw and deserves to be upheld, tri the case or McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTQ [1985] 154 ITR 148 /22 Taxman

DCIT, Cir-7, Kolkata vs. M/S Madras Elastomers Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1257/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11 Dcit, Circle-7, V/S. M/S Madras Elastomers P-7, Chowringhee Ltd.32, Ganesh Chandra Square, 5Th Floor, Avenue, Kolkata-13 Room No.15, Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aaccm 8669 A] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 22-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Viii, Kolkata Dated 12.03.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-7 Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.03.2013 For Assessment Year 2010-11. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue, Are Reproduced As Under:- “(A) “Whether Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Was The Action Of Ld. Cit(A) Justified In Allowing Relief In Respect Of 50% Of The Claim Disallowed By The Ao In Respect Of Section 80Ic Of The Act.”? (B) “Whether Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Was The Action Of Ld. Cit(A) Justified In Admitting Details In Respect Of Unit- Wise Receipt & Expenditure, Which Were Not Filed Before The Ao.?’ (C) “Whether Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Was The Action Of Ld. Cit(A) Justified In Allowing Relief When The Ao Had Rejected The Books Of The Assessee U/S. 145(3) Of The Act, Quoting Valid Reasons For The Same”?

Section 127(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 80I

would only mean that by incurring such non-genuine expenditure the assessee reduced its eligible deduction by the corresponding amount which is quite against human probabilities. I therefore do not find merit in Assessing Officer's conclusion that commission was paid as a measure of tax evasion or tax avoidance