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

Star Ply Lam Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT/ACIT Cir 1(1) Chandigarh, Chandigarh

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 692/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 692/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Star Ply Lam Limited Dcit/Acit Circle 1(1) बनाम/ Sco 34, Sector 26 Chandigarh Vs. Chandigarh-160019 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-3258-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) - Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 17-10- 2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 31-12-2019. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition Of Cash Deposit Of Rs.33.26 Lacs During Demonetization Period. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 132 Days In The Appeal, The Condonation Of Which Has Been Sought By Ld. Ar On The Strength Of Condonation Petition Which Is Accompanied By Affidavit Of Assessee’S Chartered Accountant Shri Manish Goel. It Has Been Stated

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

Belle Hospitality, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5563/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Belle Hospitality, Ito Ward 41(2)(1), Basement & Ground Floor, Kautilya Bhavan Filix Building Lbs Marg, Vs. Mumbai - 400051 Bhandup West, Mumbai – 400 078 Pan: Aakfb5304J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dhaval Shah, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.04.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ddl/Jcit (A) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In This Case, The Ao Vide Order Dated 15.12.2016 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Has Made The Additions Of Rs.15,00,000/- & Rs.60,658/- For Unexplained Cash Credit/Non-Genuine Loans U/S 68 Of The Act & The Interest Paid Respectively, However, Allowed The Set Off Of Rs.10,16,395/- As Claimed By The Assessee. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing Notice Dated 23.01.2015 U/S 148 Of The Act, Which Resulted Into Passing The Reassessment Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68