“addition u/s 68”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 682,598 judgments

The decision most relied on for addition u/s 68 is CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (216 CTR 195), cited in 854 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on addition u/s 68

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. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd.

299 ITR 268 · 2008 · High Court

426

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot add share capital or share premium amounts if the assessee provides the identity and creditworthiness of the subscriber and establishes the genuineness of the transaction. The court may admit additional evidence under Rule 46A, such as the PAN identity of the creditor.

CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad

72 ITR 194 · 1969 · Supreme Court

272

citing judgments

If there is an unexplained cash credit, the Assessing Officer can treat it as the assessee's income, even when the income is finalized on an estimation basis, without proving its specific source. The onus then shifts to the assessee to prove that the income represented by the cash credit has already been taxed.

CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd.

330 ITR 298 · 2011 · High Court

218

citing judgments

An assessee cannot be asked to explain the source of the source for cash credits, particularly share capital or share application money, once they have discharged the initial onus regarding the identity, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the immediate investor.

1) CIT v. Sahibganj Electric Cables Pvt. Ltd. (

151 ITR 150 · 1985 · High Court

citing judgments

The assessee's burden under Section 68 to prove cash credits is discharged by establishing the identity of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction; the assessee is not required to prove the creditor's source of funds or creditworthiness, as the department can use Section 131 for further investigation.

Jatia Investment Co. v. CIT

206 ITR 718 · 1994 · High Court

citing judgments

An addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits cannot be made when there is no actual cash credit or flow of funds, such as in cases of share swaps or notional credits.

Hastimal v. CIT

49 ITR 273 · 1963 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessee's duty regarding the creditworthiness of a creditor is limited to the transactions between them, and they are not required to investigate the ultimate source of the creditor's funds. If the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness are established, no addition under Section 68 is permissible.

CIT v. Prameshwar Bohra

301 ITR 404 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

An amount already credited in the books of account in an earlier assessment year cannot be added again as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act in a subsequent assessment year.

Judgments citing addition u/s 68

Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jodhpur, Paota C Road vs. J.M. Metals, Basni

ITA 257/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, HonʼBle & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH (Virtual) JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HONʼBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR

Sita Devi Choudhary, Ahore Jalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Jalore

In the result, stands allowed

ITA 115/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Cit(A) Challenging The Additions Made By The Ao. The Ld.Cit(A) Upheld Both The Additions Made By Observing-

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

make any enquiry, whatsoever, to hold the loan as bogus.Therefore, holding the same to be unexplained and making addition u/s 68 is unwarranted. 21 Sita Devi Choudhary, Jalore The provisions of Section 68 of the Act suggest that if there is any sum credited in books of account maintained

Dharmdeep Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1) (Previously Circle-1(1)(2)), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 398/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 68

duly confirmed. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. Addition u/s 68 5. We have gone through the facts on record. It reveals that the assessee has made a total profit of Rs.27,89,502/- on account

Tarun Muradia, Udaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1 Udaipur, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 848/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132aSection 132tSection 143(2)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

result of search – Once there is no incriminating material in support of the addition and brought on record by the Revenue, then no addition u/s 68 could be made. (ii) CIT and Anr V/s Lancy Constructions (2017) 295 CTR (Kar) 454Assessment u/s 153A computation of undisclosed income - When there were ... prove genuineness of transactions as well as credit worthiness of the investing companies as well as investors of investing companies— Accordingly, AO made addition u/s 68—CIT(A), after considering remand report of AO and rejoinder of the assessee to such remand report, upheld AO’s action—Held,addition made

Pawan Kumar, Ranchi vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Ranchi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 487/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.487/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Pawan Kumar….………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant A/3, Manorama Enclave, Argora, Pundag Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834012. [Pan: Agypk0863F] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Ranchi……........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 23, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 03.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 15 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & That The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Notices For Hearing & The Tribunal Cannot Keep This Appeal Pending For Indefinite Time Due To Non-Representation. Therefore, In The Absence Of Any Authorised Representative Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Decide The

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the transaction in his bank accounts, the Assessing Officer treated the same by making an addition u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit of Rs.12,83,000/- completing the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 26.05.2023. 5. Dissatisfied

Income-Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. Ankit Gold Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 429/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri

Section 133(6)Section 145Section 68

summary, in view of the judicial precedents, and the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the addition u/s 68 is not justified. Accordingly, the Assessing officer is directed to delete the addition of Rs.3,02,51,598/- u/s 68

Tanveer Alam, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-32(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1970/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Am Tanveer Alam Income Tax Officer, 45/Aa, Shamsul Huda Road 10B, Middleton Row, Vs. Kolkata-700017, West Bengal Kolkata-700071, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acgpa7829R Assessee By : Shri G. Banerjee, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nicholas Murmu, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri G. Banerjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nicholas Murmu, DR

Section 143(2)Section 68

assessee has been dismissed. 03. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the ld. AR challenges the very impugned order, thereby submitting that the addition u/s 68 of the Act of the alleged ground of unexplained cash deposit to bank account disregarding regularly maintained books of accounts is wrong, erroneous and mis-conceived

Asst. Commissioner Income Tax, Noida vs. Doonvalley Technopolis Private Limited, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3224/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahmanacit, Vs. Doonvalley Technoplis Pvt. Ltd., Noida. C-45, Sector 65, Noida – 201 307 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aaccd4092L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 Date Of Order : 23.06.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 25.09.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Considering The Issue On Record, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal With The Assistance Of Ld. Dr Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(4)Section 68

Assessing Officer proceeded to make the addition of Rs.1,41,21,722/- i.e. 8% of the gross receipt. Further the Assessing Officer made addition u/s 68 of the Act to the extent of cash deposit made during the impugned year to the extent of Rs.2,58,92,607/-. 4. Aggrieved

Shri Bharatkumar Iashwarbhai Bhatiya, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (1) (2), Rajkot

ITA 46/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Government. While Gambling is a regulated activity, the IT Act provisions outrightly prohibit procurement in 'Cash' above a prescribed limit. f). On addition u/s 68, reliance is placed on the following authorities: 1. In the matter of Sudhir Kumar Sharma (HUF) V/s Commissioner of Income Tax- III, Ludhiana

Shri Bharatkumar Iashwarbhai Bhatiya, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (1) (2), Rajkot

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

ITA 45/RJT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Government. While Gambling is a regulated activity, the IT Act provisions outrightly prohibit procurement in ‘Cash’ above a prescribed limit. ff). On addition u/s 68, reliance is placed on the following authorities: 1. In the matter of Sudhir Kumar Sharma (HUF) V/s Commissioner of Income Tax- Ill, Ludhiana

Shri Bharatkumar Iashwarbhai Bhatiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Cirl-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

ITA 44/RJT/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Government. While Gambling is a regulated activity, the IT Act provisions outrightly prohibit procurement in ‘Cash’ above a prescribed limit. f). On addition u/s 68, reliance is placed on the following authorities: 1. In the matter of Sudhir Kumar Sharma (HUF) V/s Commissioner of Income Tax- III, Ludhiana