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

Mohd. Naushad Ansari (Prop. Gulsan Sev Foods), Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 620/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Mohd Naushad Ansari The Ito, Ward-5(3)(3) Prop: Gulsan Sev Foods Vs. Anandnagar Road 51, Pujara Ni Chali Ahmedabad. Nr.Sarangpur Bridge Kamdar Medan – Gomtipur Ahmedabad 380 021 Pan: Aiwpa 6480 G (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri M.K. Patel, Ar Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.01.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Confirming The Addition Of Rs.28,54,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Act In Respect Of Cash Deposits Made In The Bank Accounts Of The Assessee During The Demonetisation Period. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(3), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], Vide Order Dated 29.12.2019. 2. Facts Of The Case 2

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68

Bhumika Patel, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 29(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1150/KOL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1150/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bhumika Patel……………..……...……..…………………....Appellant 6, Burdwan Road, Block A Flat No.-4A/B, Konark Garden, Kol-27. [Pan: Alnpp8896P] Vs. Ito, Ward-29(1), Kolkata…………………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akshay Rinsia, Ar & T N Jaiswal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 29, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed By The Nfac [In Short Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Are That The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, On The Basis Of Information Received From The Adit (Investigation), Rajkot. It Was Reported That M/S. Bhoomidev Credit Corporation Ltd. Was Engaged In Providing Accommodation Entries & The Assessee Was Identified As One Of The Beneficiaries. As Per The Investigation Findings That, A Cash Amount Of ₹75 Lakhs Was Deposited In The Books Of M/S. Bhoomidev Credit Corporation Ltd. & An Amount Of ₹66,14,712 Appeared As An Outstanding Loan In Its Balance Sheet In The Name Of The Assessee. Based On This Information, The Ao Recorded Reasons To Believe That

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. Gateway Financial Services Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1146/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1146/Kol/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dcit, Central Circle-3(1), Vs Gateway Financial Services Ltd, Kolkata 2Nd Floor, Room No.209-210, Jasmine Tower, 31, Shakespeare Sarani, West Bengal-700017 Pan No. :Aabcg 1634 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Cit-Dr नििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/07/2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 27.07.2023, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-21, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. This Appeal Is Barred By 25 Days. Looking To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Delay Of 25 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted & Disposed Off Accordingly. 3. The Only Issue Raised By The Revenue Is Against The Deleting The Addition Of Rs.15.05 Crores By The Ld. Cit(A) As Made By The Ao U/S.68 Of The Act In Respect Of Unsecured Loan Received By The Assessee During The Year.

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C