“human probabilities”
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
