Section 68 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.102

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 102 (Unexplained credits) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 102 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 68 is Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (149 Taxmann.com 399), cited in 2,379 of the 29,931 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 68

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court
2,379
citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT
214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court
1,967
citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd.
374 ITR 645 · 2015 · High Court
1,823
citing judgments

In Section 153A proceedings, the scope of assessment extends to abated proceedings, enabling an assessee to raise fresh legal claims that could have been made in regular assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

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.

GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO
259 ITR 19 · 2003 · Supreme Court
1,349
citing judgments

When a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons for reopening upon the assessee's request and must dispose of the assessee's objections to the notice by passing a speaking order.

Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT
26 ITR 775 · 1954 · Supreme Court
1,061
citing judgments

Corroborative evidence is essential to support evidence found on third-party premises, and an assessment cannot be based on suspicion, surmises, or conjecture.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
291 ITR 500 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,030
citing judgments

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
159 ITR 78 · 1986 · Supreme Court
897
citing judgments

When an assessee provides the identity and address of a creditor or investor for a cash credit or share capital under Section 68, the burden shifts to the Department to establish lack of genuineness or creditworthiness, requiring it to conduct further inquiries; mere non-compliance by third parties to summons cannot be the sole basis for an adverse inference against the assessee.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO
236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court
862
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

Judgments on Section 68

Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2026

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Shri Tapas Ram Misravikas Ashokkumar Masand, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Indian Oil Petrol Pump, Income Tax, Nr. Manav Mandir, Circle 3(1)(1), Drive-In Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380052. [Pan : Acbpa3190 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Ms Ridhi Masani, Ca On Behalf Of Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar Respondent Represented By: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.10.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.10.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.07.2026 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 16.07.2026 Is Bad In Law, Contrary To The Facts On Record, Contrary To The Settled Judicial Precedents & Is Passed Without Properly Appreciating The Evidence & Submissions Placed Before Him & Therefore Requires To Be Set Aside. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 34,40,123/-Made By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 69A Of The Act, When The Very

Section 115BSection 131Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Jamnagar vs. Rameshbhai Harvara, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 450/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 442/Rjt/2025 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 ] Rameshbhai Harvara Income Tax Office, Ward-1(3), Sarvesh Gohil & Associates Aaykar Bhavan, Income Tax Office, Vs. Office No. 202, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Saint Lal Wadi Main Road, Ann'S School, Jamnagar-361110, Gujarat Jamnagar-361008, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahph2051F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 450/Rjt/2025 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 ] Income Tax Office, Ward-1(3), Rameshbhai Harvara Aaykar Bhavan, Income Tax Office, Vs Sarvesh Gohil & Associates Lal Wadi Main Road, Office No. 202, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Saint Jamnagar-361110, Gujarat Ann'S School, Jamnagar-361008, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahph2051F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sarvesh Gohil, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2026 :: Order :: Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh Gohil, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271ASection 68