“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

Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 809/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd….…......................…...……………....Appellant 48/6, Suman Villa, 2Nd Floor, 155, Jessore Road, Kolkata-700055. [Pan: Aabcd1131H] Vs. Pcit, Asansol….....….........................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 30.12.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 158 Days. A Separate Application Of Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That After Receipt Of The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit, The Assessee, Through Its Director, Shri Deep Kishan Saraf, Immediately Approached One Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Chartered

Section 253Section 263Section 5

would be seen that the source of their investment in the shares of the assessee company was accepted in as much as no addition u/s 68 or section 69 or any other section was made by the Assessing Officer assessing them. This shows that the return filed by the said

Sanjay Vimalchand Borana, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-20(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3831/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2010-11 Sanjay Vimalchand Borana, 3, Nanji Rawji Bldg, A.D.Marg , Sewree, Mumbai 400 015. Pan:Aeypb-2999-F - Appellant

For Appellant: Mr. Margav Shukla &For Respondent: Shri Suni Mathews, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd (397 ITR 136)(Bom), wherein it was held that the addition u/s 68 could not be made once the assessee had produced the documents to prove the cash credits. 4 Assessment Year 2010-11 6. In view

Quest Online, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-49(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1046/KOL/2023[2020-21`]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1046/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Quest Online…………………………………...............................……….……Appellant Block-A, 3Rd Floor, Room No.24, 1, Chandni Chowk Street, Princep Street, Kolkata – 700072. [Pan:Aaafq4820G] Vs. Ito, Ward-49(1),Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & Sunil Surana, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 03, 2024 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2020-21Against The Order Dated 08.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Only Issue Raised In The Various Grounds Of Appeals Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition By Cit(A) Of Rs.14,82,41,932/- As Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 68 Of The Act R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 09.01.2021 Declaring Total Income From Business & Profession At Rs.36,73,790/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices Were Duly Issued & Served Upon The Assessee. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Various Documents & Evidences Were Called For By The Assessing Officer From The Assessee

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

considering that, the onus is on the appellant to prove the genuineness of the transaction and such onus has not been discharged. The addition u/s 68 of the Act made by the Assessing Officer is upheld. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed.” 5. We have heard

DCIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi vs. Surya Kiran Finance Corporation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 974/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A)-30, New Delhi. Before him, the assessee has filed detailed submissions. After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) given substantial relief to the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs.1,57,42,260/- and sustained the addition of Rs.8,74,134/-.

Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69A

under litigation and the addition was made u/s 68 of the Act. The loan taken by the assessee is already considered for addition u/s 68 of the Act, for the same loan repayment, it cannot be added one more time, therefore, the action of the Assessing Officer is not justified

ITO Ward-51(5), Delhi vs. Ramesh Chander Rajput, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1189/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

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

rightly offered for taxation. Since, the assessee has already admitted the sales as revenue receipt, there is no case for making the addition u/s 68 or tax the same u/s 115BBE again. Hence, the addition ITO vs. Ramesh Chander Rajput made by the AO is liable to be deleted. Grounds ... additions were made in the first Assessment order, but the computation and notice of demand were issued. Addition u/s 68 was only made in the Corrigendum to the Assessment Order.” ITO vs. Ramesh Chander Rajput 9. On the other hand, the Ld. DR objected to the above submissions and submitted

Pawan Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 789/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 136Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

u/s 68. The various courts have held that when estimation of income is resorted to after rejecting the books of account, no separate addition u/s 68 is called for even though the assessee failed to discharge its onus of proof in explaining the credit in its books. Therefore, we direct

Pawan Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 788/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 136Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

DCIT, Central Circle, Kolkata vs. Merlins, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 907/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 907/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Merlins Merlin House Tax, Central Circle -2(3), Kolkata Vs Samghu Nath Pandit Street Bhowanipore Kolkata - 700020 [Pan : Aatfm9627P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 02/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 28 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. On Perusal Of The Petition, We Are Convinced That The Revenue Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause From Filing This Appeal In Prescribed Time Limit. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (supra), we are of the view that no addition u/s 68 of the Act is called for the impugned Assessment Year. Thus, no interference is called for in the finding

Wellman Logistice Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT(OSD), Ward-4(1), Kolkata.

ITA 694/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 6Section 68

creditworthiness to make the alleged investment. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available in the record. The alleged addition u/s 68 of the Act at Rs. 1,26,00,000/- was challenged before us by the assessee. The said sum is on account of increase ... share capital and share premium of the assessee company which both lower authorities have held to be unexplained calling for addition u/s 68 of the Act from the nine companies. From the perusal of the above details, we find a sum of Rs. 1,26,00,000/- as share capital

Pramod Kumar Singh, Bhopal vs. ITO-Ward-3(1), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 302/IND/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

framed assessment u/s 144 vide assessment-order dated 26.03.2015 determining total income at Rs. 35,02,709/- consisting solely of the addition u/s 68 on account of unexplained deposits in bank a/c. The AO also initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) for concealing particulars of income as well

Pramod Kumar Singh, Bhopal vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 301/IND/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Pramod Kumar Singh, Bhopal vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 300/IND/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

DCIT 19.1, Mumbai vs. Chhaya Dinesh Vora, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3846/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

grounds of appeal, the Revenue has challenged the order of the ld. CIT (A) restricting the addition of Rs.4,66,797/- as against addition u/s 68 of Rs.4,91,38,720/- made by the ld. AO on account of credits in the bank account. 2 Chhaya Dinesh Vora

M/S Om Namah Shivay Trading Company, Paraola vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 511/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68

NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of Rs.1,10,00,000/- by holding that the capital introduced by five partners in the appellant firm through banking channel ... duly explained by documentary 5 evidences and owned up by the respective partners as also reflected in their bank statements and therefore, no addition u/s 68 could have been made in the hands of the appellant firm on the ground that the source of source i.e. source of capital introduced

I.T.O., Ward-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Mangalvani Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 785/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 785/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), M/S. Mangalvani Commercial Pvt. Kolkata Vs Ltd. 2B, Grant Lane Room No.-4K Kolkata - 700012 [Pan: Aaccl2310D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Kiran Chatrapoty, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/01/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The When The Case Was Fixed For Hearing On 24/08/2022, 01/09/2022, 11/10/2022 & 01/08/2023. No Compliance Was Made Even When Notices Were Sent Through Rpad. Even Today Also There Is No Representation. It, Therefore, Seems That The Assessee Is Not Interested To Pursue This Appeal. We, Therefore Decide To Adjudicate The Issue Raised In The Instant Appeal On The Basis Of The Available Records & Hearing The Departmental Representative. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Chatrapoty, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

share capital has been issued. Thus, for lack of receipt of cash for issue of shares, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition u/s 68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the revenue is appeal before this Tribunal. 6. The ld. D/R submitted that Section 68 of the Act only ... filed any details before the ld. Assessing Officer. 7. We have heard the ld. D/R and perused the record placed before us. Addition u/s 68 of the Act for unexplained share capital and share premium of Rs. 1,35,000/- and Rs.3,49,65,000/- is in challenge before

DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Cds Infra Projects Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1998/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

Share Share subscription Subscribers subscription subscription money not accepted by money received money the Ld. A.O and made by the appellant accepted by addition u/s 68 read (in Rs.) the Ld. A.O as with section 115BBE of genuine (in the Act (in Rs) Rs.) M/s. O.P. Gupta & Sons ... share subscription money received by the appellant has the genesis of the unauthorized diversion of funds by M/s CDS- NKC(JV), still addition u/s 68 is uncalled for. Support is derived from the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v/s Value Capital Services

Kapil Chhabra, Moradabad vs. DCIT Circle-2, Moradabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6345/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usasstt. Yr: 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

Stock Exchange, STT was paid and the sale proceeds were credited in the account through online. He stated that under such circumstances, the addition u/s 68 was unwarranted and should be deleted. He also relied upon several judgments. 3.3 I have heard the counsel and perused the submissions. I have

Satish Chand Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 211/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

well as the sales. Since, the assessee has already admitted the sales as revenue receipt, there is no case for making the addition u/s 68 or tax the same u/s 115BBE again. This view is also supported by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case ... that Ltd. vs. ACIT 3743, 3744, 3745, merely difference in ratio of cash 3746/Del/2019 sales cannot be made sole ground for making an addition u/s. 68 of the Act. The hon’ble Tribunal further held that the assessee had regular cash sale and deposit of cash in bank account

Veena Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-25, Delhi

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 295/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 294/Del/2022, (A.Y. 2016-17) & Ita No. 295/Del/2022, (A.Y. 2017-18) Veena Singh Vs. Acit Flat 5, 2Nd Floor, J-21, Central Circle-25 South Extension Part-1, Room No. 322, 3Rd Floor, Delhi Ara Centre, Jhandewalan, Pan: Axjps9588H Delhi

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 44ASection 68Section 69A

only granting partial relief against additions that the AO made under section 68, and in violation pre-requisites for making addition u/s 68. 4. The Id CIT(A) had erred in facts and circumstances of the case and in law in upholding additions that the AO made as bogus business ... making Veena Singh Vs. ACIT assessment on a substantial basis in case of any assessee and in violation pre-requisites for making addition u/s 68 3. The Id CIT(A) erred in facts and circumstances of the AF case and in law in upholding additions that the AO made under

Veena Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle25, Delhi

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 294/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 44ASection 68Section 69A