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

Birbhum Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., Suri vs. I.T.O. - 3(1), Suri

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2399/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Sept 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19 Birbhum Enterprise Private Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Suri Limited C/O-P.K. Himmat Singhka & Co., 41, B.B. Ganguly Street, 2Nd Floor, Room No.B4, Kolkata, West Bengal-700012 [Pan: Aafcb4118C] Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pramod Himmat Singhka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Soumitra Ghosh, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2026 O R D E R Per Yogesh Kumar U.S.: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 21.08.2025, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”, For Short) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,12,650/- Which Has Been Processed By Cpc U/S 143(1)(A) Of The Act At Return Of Income. Subsequently, An Order U/S 148A(D) Of The Act Came To Be Passed On 30.03.2022 Alleging That The Income Of Rs.29,00,000/- Chargeable To Tax Has Birbhum Enterprise Private Limited; A.Y.: 2018-19 Escaped Assessment Within The Meaning Of Section 147 Of The Act. Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee. An Assessment Order Came To Be Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 20.03.2023 By Making An Addition Of Rs.29,00,000/- U/S 68 Of The Act & Rs.87,000/- U/S 69C Of The Act. Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Dated 20.03.2023, Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 21.08.2025, Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee. As Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Assessee Preferred The Present Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Himmat Singhka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumitra Ghosh, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153CSection 250Section 68Section 69C

Maa Chhinmastika Enterprises Private Limited, Samastipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 11/PAT/2026[2012-2013]Status: HeardITAT Patna23 Sept 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.11/Pat/2026 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Maa Chhinmastika Enterprises Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Patna Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.69,70 Industrial Area, Harpur Ailoth, Harpur Ailoth Samastipur, Bihar 848101. Pan No. : Aaecm6465C (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Nishant Maitin, Ca रधजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Ravi Kant Chowdhary, Sr. D.R. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2026 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/09/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] In Appeal No.Nfac/2011-12/10044777 Dated 09.12.2025 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Shri Nishant Maitin, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Ravi Kant Chowdhary, Sr. D.R. Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Received Share Application Money Of Rs.62,00,000/- During The Assessment Year 2007-08 & The Same Was Also Scrutinized In An Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Maitin, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Chowdhary, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)