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

Mr.Shafaat M Husain, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5371/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Shafaat M. Husain, Acit – 17(3) 11, Jolly Maker Apts Iii, Mumbai - 400007 Cuffe Parade, Vs. Colaba, Mumbai – 400 005 Pan: Aaaph5013Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ritu Kamal Kishor, A.R. Revenue By : Shri T. Khalsa, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2021 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.07.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Relevant To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. A) The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Passing An Order Without Giving An Opportunity To Explain The Case. The Same Be Considered & Addition Be Deleted. B) The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Not Accepting The Plea Of The New Authorized Representative Of The Assessee With Regard To The Date Of Hearing. The Same Be Considered & An Opportunity Be Given. 2. A) Without Prejudice To The Above, The Ld. Cit (A) Grossly Erred In Not Considering The Amount Of Rs. 4,39,07,574/- Being Inheritance From His Father By Way Of Will. The Same Be Considered & Addition Be Deleted B) The Ld. Cit (A) Has Failed To Consider That The Assessee'S Father Was A Renowned Painter & Hence His Credibility Could Not Be Doubted. The Same Be Considered & Addition Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Ritu Kamal Kishor, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T. Khalsa, D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

Daga Infocom Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Cdit-CC-3(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7507/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 7507/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Daga Infocom Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Cc – 3(4) बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, 106, Sagar Shopping Centre J. P. Road, Andheri West, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 058 Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcd-9604-P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vishnu Agarwal, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Andhle, Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/08/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Certain Addition U/S 68 For Rs.67 Lacs In Ay 2009-10, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Assessment Was Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. On 147 On 30/06/2016 Wherein Impugned Order Was Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Cit(A)] On 26/10/2018. The Assessee Being Resident Corporate Assessee Is Stated

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Vinod K Faria, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) -II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 3798/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.3798/Mum/2013 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 2. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.3799/Mum/2013 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 3. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.3800/Mum/2013 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.3801/Mum/2013 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1475/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 6. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1476/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 7. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1477/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Shri Vinod K. Faria Dcit (Osd-Ii), Central Range-7 बिाम/ Flat No. 3, Fairy Manor, 13, Room No. 413, Aayakar Bhavan, Gunbow Street, Fort Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 706 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaapf-1045-J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Hiral Sejpal- Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri H. N. Singh– Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Hiral Sejpal- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh– Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69ASection 69C