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

Sanjib Kumar Mohanty, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 71/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.71/Ctk/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Sri Sanjib Kumar Mohanty, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Plot No.1038/2679, Prakruti Bhubaneswar Vihar, Baramunda, Bhubaneswar-751003 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aggpm 6814 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 20/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/08/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)- 2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 24.11.2017 Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0248/16-17 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee When The Case Was Called For Hearing, Neither Any Adjournment Petition Has Been Filed By The Assessee. Therefore, The Bench Decided To Dispose Off The Appeal Of The Assessee After Considering The Material Facts Available On Record & The Submissions Of Ld. Dr. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. For That Order Dated 24.11.2017 As Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bhubaneswar Is Far From Just & Legal On The Facts & In The Circumstances On The Case. 2. For That Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bhubaneswar Is Not Justified To Dismiss The Appeal Of The 2 Assesses Without Providing Proper Opportunity Of Hearing To The Assessee On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case. 3. For That Addition Of Sundry Creditors Of Rs.1,08,32,690/- Confirmed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bhubaneswar U/S-68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Illegal & Unjustified On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case. 4. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractors

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Rameswar Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 59/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.59/Ctk/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/S Rameswar Agro Industries Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd,, Plot No.61/143, Bagwanpur Industrial Estate, Patrapada, Bhubaneswar, Khurda-751019 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr 0805 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 20/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/08/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)- 1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 22.06.2017 Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0010/16-17 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Ld. Ar For The Assessee Has Filed An Adjournment Petition Seeking Adjournment On The Ground That Required Papers & Information In The Matter Could Not Be Collected From The Assessee, Which In Our Opinion, Is Not A Plausible One, Accordingly We Reject The Adjournment Petition & Appeal Is Heard Finally. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. For That, The Impugned Order Of Assessment Passed By The Forums Below Are Not Just & Proper Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, As Such The Addition Made Therein Is Liable To Be Deleted In The Interest Of Justice.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Sukamna Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Kolkata

ITA 734/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13 Sukamna Realtors Pvt. V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ltd.7/1A, Grant Lane, 2Nd Ward-2(1), Aayakar Floor, Kolkata-12 Bhawan, Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aarcs 1045 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Md. Usman, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 28-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Calls Into Question Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 03.10.2016, Passed In Case No.1410/Cit(A)-1/W-2(1)/2015-16 Ex Parte Upholding Assessing Officer’S Action Making Section U/S 68 Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit Amounting To ₹12,11,25,000/- On Account Of Share Capital & Share Premium As Well As Preliminary Expenditure Written Off Disallowance Of ₹7,669/-, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. We Notice At The Outset That The Assessing Officer Had Framed Regular Assessment In Question On 10.03.2015 Making The Above Two Addition(S) Of Share Application / Share Premium & Preliminary Expenditure Written Off In Assessment Order Dated 10.03.2015. He Made The Former Addition On Account

Section 143(3)Section 68