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

Sri Kumaran Traders, Trichy vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Trichy

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 229/CHNY/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.229/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sri Kumaran Traders, The Income Tax Officer, No.120, Melavadugapatti Vs. Ward-1(1), Collages Road, Musiri, Trichy. Trichy – 621 211. [Pan: Acrfs-4471-Q] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. Ts Lakshmi Venkataraman, Ca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Dated 17.10.2023, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) For The Assessment Year (A.Y) 2017-18 Against The Reassessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Passed By The Ao, Dated 19.09.2019. 2. At The Threshold, We Observe That There Is A Delay Of 751 Days In The Filing Of The Present Appeal By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Furnished An Affidavit Explaining That The Assessee Was Not Aware Of The Hearing Notices Issued By The :-2-: Ita. No.229/Chny/2026

For Appellant: Mr. TS Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

Raj Ranga Textiles Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2667/CHNY/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.2667/Chny/2025 (ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Raj Ranga Textiles Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Sf No.821/2, Kallipalayam Vs. Income-Tax, Chikkarampalayam Post Corporate Circle-1 Karamadai, Coimbatore. Coimbatore- 641 104 [Pan: Aabcr-8500-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Maruthachalamoorthy, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.04.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Dated 15.04.2025, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) For The Assessment Year (A.Y) 2017-18 Against The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Passed By The Ao, Dated 24.12.2019. :-2-: Ita. No.2667/Chny/2025

For Appellant: Shri. N. Maruthachalamoorthy, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68

Gokuladoss Sathish Kumar, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Ward-5, Cuddalore

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

ITA 2278/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2278/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gokuladoss Sathish Kumar The Income Tax Officer 48, Main Road, Mangalampet Vs. Ward - 5 Cuddalore – 606 104. Cuddalore. [Pan: Acsps2887D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.Viswanathan, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.Mythili, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi (In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’) For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Vide The Order Dated 11.07.2025 Against The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Cuddalore, (In Shot “Ao”) U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) Dated 31.12.2019. 2. The Solitary Raised By The Assessee In His Grounds Of Appeal Is That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer, Wherein The Assessment Order Was Passed By The Ao By Rejecting The Cash Book & :-2-: Ita. No:2278/Chny/2025. Treating The Cash Deposits Of Rs.2,18,40,500/- Made During The Demonetisation Period As Unexplained Money U/S.68 Of The Act. The Ao Further Erred In Concluding That The Assessee Had Artificially Inflated Cash Sales During The Period From 01.11.2016 To 08.11.2016 To Accommodate The Deposit Of Specified Bank Notes.

For Appellant: Shri. R.Viswanathan, CAFor Respondent: Ms.T.Mythili, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68