← All Phrases

“addition under section 68”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 681,640 judgments

The decision most relied on for addition under section 68 is CIT v. Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540), cited in 1,579 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on addition under section 68

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.

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.
216 CTR 195 · 2008 · Supreme Court
854
citing judgments

If an assessee company receives share application money from alleged bogus shareholders and provides their details to the Assessing Officer, no addition can be made under Section 68 in the company's hands; the Department must proceed against the shareholders by reopening their individual assessments.

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.
355 ITR 290 · 2013 · High Court
712
citing judgments

If an assessee makes purchases from bogus parties, but the underlying goods are genuinely acquired and sold, only the profit margin embedded in such purchases, and not the entire value of the bogus purchases, should be added to the assessee's income.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.
342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court
658
citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT
50 ITR 1 · 1963 · Supreme Court
581
citing judgments

The assessee bears the onus of proving the source and nature of any sum of money or receipt found to have been received by them. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the receipt, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.

Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT
37 ITR 288 · 1959 · Supreme Court
570
citing judgments

Where an assessee maintains regular books of account, and these books are not rejected or found defective by the Assessing Officer, any cash deposits or available cash shown in the cash book, if sufficient to cover the transaction, cannot be treated as unexplained income or an addition under sections 68 or 69A.

Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT
37 ITR 271 · 1959 · Supreme Court
567
citing judgments

An income tax assessment or addition cannot be sustained solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises, or conjectures, as strong suspicion does not amount to proof. The revenue authorities must rely on concrete evidence and material to frame an assessment.

Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT
107 ITR 938 · 1977 · Supreme Court
477
citing judgments

An assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of any cash credit or transaction. If the assessee fails to discharge this burden with cogent evidence and explanation, the Assessing Officer is justified in making additions to their income, and no further burden lies on the revenue.

Judgments citing addition under section 68

Balreddy Gade, Secunderabad vs. Addl. CIT., Central Range-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/HYD/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri K C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that once the revenue has treated the seized materials as reliable evidence for making an addition under Section 68, the same documents must be considered in totality, and the department cannot approbate and reprobate by selectively disregarding the appellant’s reliance ... thereby denying the appellant a reasonable opportunity to substantiate the sources of the alleged cash loans, which resulted in an arbitrary addition under Section 68 and the consequent imposition of penalty under Section 271D. 9. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the penalty order

Balreddy Gade, Secunderabad vs. Addl. CIT., Central Range-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 577/HYD/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri K C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that once the revenue has treated the seized materials as reliable evidence for making an addition under Section 68, the same documents must be considered in totality, and the department cannot approbate and reprobate by selectively disregarding the appellant’s reliance ... thereby denying the appellant a reasonable opportunity to substantiate the sources of the alleged cash loans, which resulted in an arbitrary addition under Section 68 and the consequent imposition of penalty under Section 271D. 9. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the penalty order

Balreddy Gade, Secunderabad vs. Addl. CIT., Central Range-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 576/HYD/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri K C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that once the revenue has treated the seized materials as reliable evidence for making an addition under Section 68, the same documents must be considered in totality, and the department cannot approbate and reprobate by selectively disregarding the appellant’s reliance ... thereby denying the appellant a reasonable opportunity to substantiate the sources of the alleged cash loans, which resulted in an arbitrary addition under Section 68 and the consequent imposition of penalty under Section 271D. 9. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the penalty order

Balreddy Gade, Secunderabad vs. Addl. CIT., Central Range-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 575/HYD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri K C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that once the revenue has treated the seized materials as reliable evidence for making an addition under Section 68, the same documents must be considered in totality, and the department cannot approbate and reprobate by selectively disregarding the appellant’s reliance ... thereby denying the appellant a reasonable opportunity to substantiate the sources of the alleged cash loans, which resulted in an arbitrary addition under Section 68 and the consequent imposition of penalty under Section 271D. 9. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the penalty order

Dhananjay Proprietor of M/S Innovative Business Solutions, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 51(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3893/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwaldhananjay Prop. Of M/S Income Tax Officer, Innovative Business Ward-51(2), Solution, 2097/A-1, Vs. Delhi. Gali No.15, Near Govt. School, Prem Nagar, Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008. Pan:Ambpd2549L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mayank Sharma, Adv. Department By Ms. Suman Malik, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/06/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A) In Short], Dated 07.11.2023 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-17/11006/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Prop. Of M/S Innovative Business Solutions Engaged In The Business Of Providing Business Solutions. The Return Of Income In The Year

Section 250Section 68

made out of cash balance available with the assessee and, hence, there is absolutely no case made out by the revenue for making addition under section 68." Further, in the case of Fine Gujaranwala Jewellers Vs. ITO (ITA No. 1540/Del/2022 dated 27.03.2023, wherein it was held as under