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

Sumita Singhal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3836/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsumita Singhal Income Tax Officer, 149, Tarun Enclave, Ward-17(4), Pitampura, New Delhi-110034. Vs. New Delhi. Pan:Acops9544H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R.R. Singla, Ca Department By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.09.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Delhi [ ‘Cit(A)’ In Short] In Appeal No. Cit(A)-Delhi-6/10307/2017-18 Dated 14.03.2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 27.12.2017. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Her Return Of Income On 30.01.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,05,360/- With Ito Ward-40(1), Delhi. Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 29.07.2016 By The Same Assessing Officer. Thereafter, Another Notice Issued U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 08.09.2016 By The Ito, Ward-71(2), New Delhi. On 04.09.2017 The Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By Ito, Ward No.17(4), New Delhi. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) By The Ito, Ward-17(4), Wherein The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Rs.49,65,760/- After Making Additions Of Rs.42,48,000/- By Holding The Long Term Capital Gain As Bogus & Further Addition Of Rs.2,12,400/- Was Made As Unexplained Expenditure

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

JCIT (in Situ) CC 2(2), Kolkata vs. Sunrise Timply Co (P) Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITSSA 47/KOL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyit(Ss)A No.47/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011) Jcit(In Situ) Cc-2(2), Kolkata Vs Sunrise Timply Co (P) Ltd., H-B, Goenka Niketan, 67/17,Strand Road, Jatindra Mohan Avenue Kolkata-700006 Kolkata-700006 Pan No. :Aagcs 0414 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri P.K.Himatsingka, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm : The Revenue Has Filed The Instant Appeal Against The Order Dated 16.12.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Kolkata-26 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Barred By 40 Days. Looking To The Facts Of The Case & Considering The Submissions Of The Ld.Cit-Dr, We Condone The Delay Of 40 Days In The Present Appeal Of The Revenue & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Had Carried On During The Year Business Of Trading Of Timber & Plywood. The Assessee Company Filed E-Return For The A.Y.2010-11 On 25.09.2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2285691 Tax Payable On The Total Income Was Rs.722151/- Including Interest Payable Rs 15873. After Claiming Credit For Total Prepaid Taxes Of Rs.814287 (Advance Tax Rs.500000 Plus Tds 314287) Rs 92136

For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 68Section 69C