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

Sonal Jain, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7162/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7162/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2016-17) Sonal Jain, 50, Madhuban, Delhi 110092 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Ackpj-0124-G बिाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Delhi अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : S/Shri Prasoon Agarwal & Rahul Bansal, Chartered Accountants प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 14/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-43 [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 09.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief Are: The Assessee Was Employed In The Uk, Hence, Was A Non-Resident During The Relevant Period. Assessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Were Initiated On Receipt Of Information That The Assessee Had Purchased Immovable Property For A Consideration Of Rs. 37,39,427. Notice U/S.148 Of The Act Was Issued. In Response To Said Notice The Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Income Of Rs.1,07,249/- . During Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noted That There Were 2 Cash Deposits Totaling To Rs. 1,97,800 In Assessee’S Icici Bank Account During Ay 2016-17. The Assessee Explained Source Of Cash Deposits As Rental Income & Shaguns & Gifts Received From Family Members. In Absence Of Documentary Evidence To Support Assessee'S Claim, The Ao Treated The Said Amount As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act & Made Addition Of The Same. In Appeal Before The Cit(A), The Assessee Remained Unsuccessful.

For Appellant: S/Shri Prasoon Agarwal & Rahul BansalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

M/S Sidhi Vinayak Foundation, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Faridabad

In the result, ground no. 1 to 4 of appeal are allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 4446/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.4446/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2018-19) Sidhi Vinayak Foundation, H No. 33, Village- Khijurka, Tehsil Palwal, Haryana 121102 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aaajs-4314-B बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Faridabad, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Haryana 121001 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Chartered Accountant प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 14/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 23.05.2025, For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessee Is A Society Registered Under The Haryana Registration & Regulation Of Societies Act, 2012 & Is Engaged In Educational Activities. The Assessee Is Running A School In The Name Of ‘The Millennium School’. During The Period Relevant To Assessment Year Under Appeal, The Assessee Had Received Unsecured Loans

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR