← 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

Mohit Sukhija, New Delhi vs. Nfa, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4661/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalmohit Sukhija, Nfa, 7D, Pocket A, Vikas Puri, New Delhi New Delhi-110018 Vs. Pan: Andps5089H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil Chopra, Ca Department By Sh.Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.05.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”], Dated 29.08.2023 In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10164171 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 343 Days. For The Delay, Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Wherein It Is Stated That Assessee Was Out Of Country When The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Was Passed & Served Through E-Filing Portal. Therefore, He Was Not Aware About The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) & The Appeal Could Not Be Filed In Time. He Also Filed The Copy Of The Passport Having Visa & Details Of Travelling Outside India, In Support Of The Claim That He Was Out Of India During The Period When The Order Was Served Upon Him. He Further Stated That As Soon He Returned To India & Came To Know About The Order Of Ld. Cit (A), Immediately He Filed The Appeal & Therefore, Prayed For The Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

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." 15. 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

Jatin Arora, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-30(5), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1833/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 44ASection 68

stated that it is not mandatory for assessee to maintain books, if the return of income was filed under section 44AD. Addition under section 68 can be made only if any sum is found credited in the books maintained by assessee for any previous year and assessee fails to offer

Islauddin, Jodhpur vs. ITO-Phalodi, Phalodi

ITA 800/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 May 2025AY 2017-18
Section 115BSection 69A

evident that the AO has not made out a case calling for an addition under section 69A of the Act. Probably, an addition under section 68 of the Act could have been considered; but then that is not the case of the AO. The assessee, apart from raising several other

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mehsana vs. Shri Meu Juth Vividh Karykari Sahakari Mandali Limited, Mehsana

ITA 2188/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Amember & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Section 69A

case, the explanation has been provided, backed by documentary evidence. The Assessing Officer's refusal to accept the explanation and proceed with an addition under Section 68 is unreasonable and without sufficient grounds. In light of the documents submitted: Bank statements, KCC loan recovery list, audited financial statements, Cashbook

Incometax Officer, Ward-1, Mehsana vs. Shri Meu Juth Vividh Karyakari Sahkari Mandali Limited, Mehsana

ITA 2187/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Amember & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Section 69A

case, the explanation has been provided, backed by documentary evidence. The Assessing Officer's refusal to accept the explanation and proceed with an addition under Section 68 is unreasonable and without sufficient grounds. In light of the documents submitted: Bank statements, KCC loan recovery list, audited financial statements, Cashbook

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mehsana vs. Shri Meu Juth Vividh Karyakari Sahkari Mandali Limited, Mehsana

ITA 2179/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Amember & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Section 69A

case, the explanation has been provided, backed by documentary evidence. The Assessing Officer's refusal to accept the explanation and proceed with an addition under Section 68 is unreasonable and without sufficient grounds. In light of the documents submitted: Bank statements, KCC loan recovery list, audited financial statements, Cashbook

Kalimuddin Mohamad Rafique, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-4(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 594/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Giriish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanshi Desai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Meshram, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

Appeals). 2. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred both in law and on the facts in confirming the addition under section 68 r.w.s.115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained cash deposit without considering the submissions made by the Appellant during

M/S Pazhayangadi G Gold, Kannur vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Kannur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19 Pazhayangadi G Gold, Ito, Ward-1& Tps, Eazhome Pazhayangadi, Kannur Kannur-670303 Vs. Pan : Aaufp9485G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Arun Raj S. Adv. For Revenue : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 68Section 69

guise of capital, and accordingly, in the absence of proof of identity, 9 creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction, the AO made the addition under section 68 of the Act treating the capital amounting to Rs. 3,31,24,523 introduced by the partners as unexplained credit. Thus, once ... However, in the present case, as noted above, the only basis for initiating a penalty under section 271AAC of the Act is the addition under section 68 of the Act, which was made by the AO after the detailed examination of facts. Therefore, we are of the considered view that

Ms. Sunil Gajraj Yadav, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 42(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 658/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kati Datta, CIT (DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee produced any documentary evidence to prove that the company, i.e. M/s. Ason Trading Co Ltd has misused his PAN, made the impugned addition under section 68 of the Act. 9. We find that after the assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a police complaint on 19/06/2023, a complaint with

Barkha Bimal Kumar Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals raised by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1878/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1873

Barkha Bimal Kumar Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals raised by the assessee

ITA 1877/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1873, 1874

Barkha Bimal Kumar Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals raised by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1876/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1873, 1874

Barkha Kishore Kumar Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals raised by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1875/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1873

Barkha Kishore Kumar Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals raised by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1874/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1873

Barkha Kishore Kumar Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals raised by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1873/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1873, 1874

ACIT-27(3), Mumbai vs. Simon Poulose Puthanangady, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 5521/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Mehta, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68

passed an order regarding irregularities and synchronized trades carried out in the scrip of RFL by the said broker. The Assessing Officer made addition under section 68 of the Act . On appeal the CIT(A) deleted the addition . On appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal Affirmed the order

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai, Nariman Point vs. Agv Consultants, Borivali (E), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue

ITA 4878/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon'Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

provisions of section 68 are in pari materia with section 69. Section 68 also used the word "may" and, therefore, before making an addition under section 68, the assessing officer has to exercise his discretion judiciously. Further the assessee has discharged burden of proof and genuineness of transaction, creditworthiness

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai, Nariman Point vs. Agv Consultants, Borivali (E), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4872/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

provisions of section 68 are in pari materia with section 69. Section 68 also used the word "may" and, therefore, before making an addition under section 68, the assessing officer has to exercise his discretion judiciously. Further the assessee has discharged burden of proof and genuineness of transaction, creditworthiness

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(2), Mumbai, Nariman Point vs. Agv Consultants, Borivali (E), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue

ITA 4866/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon'Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

provisions of section 68 are in pari materia with section 69. Section 68 also used the word "may" and, therefore, before making an addition under section 68, the assessing officer has to exercise his discretion judiciously. Further the assessee has discharged burden of proof and genuineness of transaction, creditworthiness

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 5(2), Mumbai, Nariman Point vs. Agv Consultants, Borivali (E), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4865/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

provisions of section 68 are in pari materia with section 69. Section 68 also used the word "may" and, therefore, before making an addition under section 68, the assessing officer has to exercise his discretion judiciously. Further the assessee has discharged burden of proof and genuineness of transaction, creditworthiness