“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

Dreamtech Constructions Pvt Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 90/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 68

general in nature. The Ground No. 3 is regarding non issuance of show cause notice during the assessment proceedings qua the subject addition u/s 68 of the Act. The above said issue has already been adjudicated for the Assessment Year 2011-12. Considering the fact that there is no necessity ... income in their returns and the assessee has failed to prove the burden caste upon him u/s 68 of the Act, therefore, the addition u/s 68 of the Act has been rightly made which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 23. We have heard both the parties

Rajan Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-35(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3309/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshrajan Gupta, Vs. Acit, A-98, Kamla Nagar, Circle-35(1), Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aahpg2524Q Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

case for the revenue to hold that cash deposit were made out of undisclosed source of income of the assessee warranting any addition u/s 68 of the Act. In any case, it is for the revenue to prove that the cash withdrawals made earlier had been utilized by the assessee

DCIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S Mgi Infracon Pvt. Ltd., (Earlier M/S Bigmoon Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 3797/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakroborty, CIT-DR

Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

object for the admission of additional evidence. 10. On the contrary, in the remand report, the Assessing Officer mentioned that the addition u/s 68 of the Act has been made in the case of KDP Buildwell Pvt Ltd., therefore, no addition is to be made on this ground

DCIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S Mgi Infracon Pvt. Ltd., (Earlier M/S Bigmoon Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 3795/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakroborty, CIT-DR

Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

Standard Ganpati Merchandise Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

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

ITA 2612/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Subhash C JalanFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. DR

Section 68

dismissing the Assessee's appeal by upholding the records in dismissing the Assessee's appeal by upholding the ITO's action of addition u/s 68 of Rs. 25,60,500/ ITO's action of addition u/s 68 of Rs. 25,60,500/- being 75% of being 75% of cash withdrawal

ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Express Tradelink Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 43/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 43/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Ward -5(1), M/S. Express Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Vs 64, Bentinck Street 3Rd Floor Kolkata - 700001 [Pan: Aacce0887C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate & Shri Asim Panda, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/02/2024 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 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata – 7, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 23/09/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 36 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Revenue. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. On Perusing The Same, We Are Convinced That The Revenue Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing This Appeal In Time. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate and ShriFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R

Section 250Section 68

taxmann.com 48(SC) is not applicable on the facts of the case decided in favour of the assessee by deleting the impugned addition u/s 68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the revenue is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. The ld. CIT D/R submitted that the ld. Assessing Officer ... 68 of the Act and even the source of source has also been explained. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition u/s 68 of the Act. 7 I.T.A. No. 43/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Express Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. 8. We have heard rival contentions and perused

Udayan Grover, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

judgment in the case of CIT Vs Independent Media Pvt Ltd. {2012 24 Taxmann 276 Delhi, wherein it was held that addition u/s 68 id inevitable on unearthing of sham transactions. No further evidence needed to prove their sources. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court categorically held Page ... TRANSACTIONS IN PENNY STOCK: 7.1 to 7.3 …. DECISION-I: 7.4 During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee contended that the AO made addition u/s 68 of the Act without considering the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the ingredients for claiming exemption u/s.10(38) of the Act. Also

Gdk Jewels Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

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

ITA 952/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshgdk Jewels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 57, Ring Road, Lajpat Circle-10(1), Nagar-3, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacg0095Q

For Appellant: Shri Pulkit Saini, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 68

erred in not appreciating the documentary and primary evidences produced by the appellant i.e. copies of invoice and sales registers, while making addition u/s 68 of the Act. 5. That the Ld. AO has erred in making a disallowance of Rs.82,718/- u/s 14A of the Act without considering

Prashant Pitti, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3032/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2016-17 Prashant Pitti, Vs. Acit, C-179, Central Circle-4, Vivek Vihar, Delhi. New Delhi-110095. Pan Awxpp4522D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri P N Barnwal, CIT (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68Section 69A

reasonableness of the fact in this issue is very much lacking in this case.” 6. Accordingly, the Ld. AO made the impugned addition u/s 68 of the Act against which the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). 7. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition u/s ... cash, AO has considered it as cash credit in the books of accounts and covered by section 68 and therefore, and made the addition u/s 68 of the Act. 30. In my opinion the correct section should be 69Aof the Act. In section 69A, emphasis is on "or the explanation

Marulasidappa Gundagathi Dyamavvanahalli, Davangere vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davangere

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

ITA 898/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2010-11 Marulasidappa Gundagathi Dyamavvanahalli #2035/148, Nutan Nilaya Ito 12Th Cross, Anjaneya Badavane Ward-1 Vs. Davanagere 577 005 Davangere Karnataka Pan No.Agepd9313P Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Aparithivel, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Dated 29.9.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1: The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri AParithivel, D.R

Section 142Section 234Section 250Section 68

assess the outstanding balances, while accepting the purchases made during the year & payments made during the year. The AO has made the addition u/s 68 of the Act and did not invoke provisions of sec. 41(1) of the Act. On the contrary, the assessee has shown that the payments

DCIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Shivji Garments Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross objections of the assesee are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 9642/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Shilpi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

under section 68 of the Act. The AO in the assessment order has made an addition u/s 68 of the Act on protective basis on account of unexplained credit entries of Rs. 2,25,47,365/- in the bank account of the appellant received from various parties

DCIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Shivji Garments Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross objections of the assesee are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 9641/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Shilpi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

DCIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Shivji Garments Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross objections of the assesee are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 9640/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Shilpi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

DCIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Shivji Garments Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross objections of the assesee are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 9639/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Shilpi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

Sanyukta Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 22(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2455/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Gunjan Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr.DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

general in nature and no opportunity to cross examine was provided to assessee. 9. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition u/s 68 is not warranted as assessee has proved all the three aspects i.e. identity, genuineness and creditworthiness. 10. Under the facts and circumstances ... addition on substantiate basis. The relevant portion of the order is re-produced as below: "The assessing officer has assessed the entire addition u/s. 68 on protective basis in the hands of both Sh. Surendra Kumar Jain and Sh. Virendra Jain and assessed commission income in the hands

M/S Tjr Properties Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, CC-2, Chandigarh

ITA 3/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

appellant could not explain the purpose and utilisation of such credits. However, the AO failed to take cognisance of the fact that addition u/s 68 of the Act is to be made if the appellant doesn't offer any explanation regarding the source and nature of credits received

ACIT, CC-2, Chandigarh vs. M/S Tjr Properties Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 144/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

Komal Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 645/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 645/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Komal Agarwal बिधम / Dcit, Central Circle 7(3) 203, Ugam, N.S Road No.9, Room No 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Ville Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Parle (W), Mumbai-400097 Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी लेखध सं/.जीआइआर सं/.Pan/Gir No. : Ahwpr9295B (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Harion TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 68

hold that, the Ld. CIT(A) had erred both on facts and in law in upholding the AO’s action of making addition u/s 68 of the Act, in relation to the proceeds derived on sale of shares of M/s Global 39 AY 2014-15 Komal Agarwal . Infratech & Finance

Novel Deal Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 18(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 3559/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyanovel Deal Private Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward 18 (4), Nangia Park, New Delhi. Rajouri Garden, Delhi – 110 027. (Pan : Aaacn2204L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Shri Rajat Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2024 Date Of Order : 02.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 251Section 68

u/s 143 (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) assessing income at Rs.13,95,150/-. The AO made the addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of unconfirmed sundry credits of Rs.3,35,718/-, excess cash deposits of Rs.1,87,110/-, rental income of Rs.3

Vishwanathareddy Chennareddy, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(7), Bengaluru

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

ITA 900/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemasundara Rao P., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 250Section 251Section 68Section 69A

Rs.30,00,000/- is liable to be added as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and the ld. AO made addition u/s 68 of the Act at Rs.61.98 lakhs. 3.1 During the first appeal proceedings, the learned CIT (Appeals) accepted the contention of the Assessee that the deposit ... books of account, it was held that when Assessee 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, I am of the view that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present