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

Gs & Sd Associates, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2767/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2767/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gs & Sd Associates, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 03, Vania Street, Kundrathur, Non Corporate Ward 8(2), Chennai 600 069. Chennai. [Pan:Aaqfg8838C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.08.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Amongst Which The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act , 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 68

Satish Kumar Jain, Jain Abhushan Bhandar, Ambala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Ambala, Income Tax Office

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 63/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.63/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.362/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Satish Kumar Jain Ito Ward-4 (Prop. Of M/S Jain Abhushan Bhandar) Ambala, Haryana - 133001 बनाम/ C/O Rajiv Goel & Associates (Ca) Vs. 179 Bank Road, Ambala Cantt. Haryana – 133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acgpk-6011-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Dhruv Goel (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. In These Captioned Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Quantum Addition As Well As Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aac For Rs.2,77,868/-. First, We Take Up Quantum Appeal Ita No.63/Chandi/2025 Which Arises Out Of An Order

For Appellant: Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271A

Satish Kumar Jain, Ambala vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -4 Ambala, Ambala

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 362/CHANDI/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.63/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.362/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Satish Kumar Jain Ito Ward-4 (Prop. Of M/S Jain Abhushan Bhandar) Ambala, Haryana - 133001 बनाम/ C/O Rajiv Goel & Associates (Ca) Vs. 179 Bank Road, Ambala Cantt. Haryana – 133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acgpk-6011-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Dhruv Goel (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. In These Captioned Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Quantum Addition As Well As Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aac For Rs.2,77,868/-. First, We Take Up Quantum Appeal Ita No.63/Chandi/2025 Which Arises Out Of An Order

For Appellant: Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271A