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

Gayathri Global Resources Private Limited, Jamshedpur vs. ITO Ward (1), Jamshedpur

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 96/RAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.456/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gayatri Global Pvt. Ltd …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 153, Kamani Centre, Bistupur, Jharkhand-831001. [Pan: Aadcg3732B] Vs. Nfac, New Delhi…….....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.96/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Gayatri Global Pvt. Ltd …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 153, Kamani Centre, Bistupur, Jharkhand-831001. [Pan: Aadcg3732B] Vs. Nfac, New Delhi…….....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Agarwal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 16, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2013–14 & 2014–15. Since The Issues Involved, The Assessment Proceedings & The Additions Made Are Common & On Identical Issues, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We First Take Up

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

Gayatri Global Private Limited, Jamshedpur vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 456/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.456/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gayatri Global Pvt. Ltd …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 153, Kamani Centre, Bistupur, Jharkhand-831001. [Pan: Aadcg3732B] Vs. Nfac, New Delhi…….....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.96/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Gayatri Global Pvt. Ltd …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 153, Kamani Centre, Bistupur, Jharkhand-831001. [Pan: Aadcg3732B] Vs. Nfac, New Delhi…….....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Agarwal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 16, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2013–14 & 2014–15. Since The Issues Involved, The Assessment Proceedings & The Additions Made Are Common & On Identical Issues, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We First Take Up

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

Neelam Sanjay Mehta, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 5859/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) A N D Shri Prabhash Shankar (Am) Smt. Neelam Sanjay Mehta Ito, Ward 19(2)(4), 2/78-80, Gora Gandhi Building, C.P. Mumbai/ Nfac, Delhi Tank Road Vs. Mumbai-400 004. Pan : Ayzpm8574E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. Ca Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/12/2025 O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) :- This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.9.2024 Impugned Herein Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, Delhi (In Short Ld. Commissioner) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) For A.Y. 2015-16. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Being An Individual Deriving Income From Salary, House Property, Capital Gain & Other Sources Had Declared Her Total Income At Rs. 4,63,750/- By Filing Her Return Of Income On Dated 1.9.2015 For The Assessment Year Under Consideration. Subsequently, Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Act, With The Reason That The Assessee Is One Of The Beneficiaries, Who Has Made Sale Of Shares, Wherein Trading Quantity Is Higher Than ‘Buy Trades Quantity’ Of The Scrip M/S. Toyam Industries Ltd. To The Tune Of Rs. 1,99,12,777/- & Accordingly, Statutory Notices Were Issued To The Assessee. In Response To Which, The Assessee Filed Relevant Details & The Documents, Such As Purchase Documents, Sale Contract Note, Bank Statement Etc. Qua Purchase & Sale Of Shares Of Scrip Namely M/S. Toyam Industries Ltd. .

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 155BSection 250Section 68

DCIT, Delhi vs. Sephan Lubricants Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7255/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7255/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2020-21) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant 348, Ara Centre, E2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi 110055 बिाम Vs. Sephan Lubricants P. Ltd., M-10, Sec-5, Bawana Industrial Area, New Delhi ...... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaocs-1829-E अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 18.07.2025, For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 12 Days. The Revenue Has Filed An Application Citing Reasons Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, The Delay Has Been Caused For The Reasons Stated In Petition Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Thus, Delay Of 12 Days In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Decision On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate
Section 132Section 147Section 68Section 69C