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

DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. United Tech Ventures Pvt Ltd, C. G. Road, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 214/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 214/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Dcit United Tech Ventures Pvt Ltd., Vs. Circle 4(1)(1), 605, Samedh Complex, Nr. Ahmedabad Associated Petrol Pump, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad-380006 [Pan : Aabcu 0357 N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा")रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vihar Soni, Ar +,थ. की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue As Against The Appellate Order Dated 07.11.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”), Arising Out Of The Reassessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “The Act” In Short), Relating To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Private Limited Company, Filed Its Original Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 On 01.10.2018, Declaring Rs. Nil Income & Claimed Current Year Loss Of Rs.6,36,309/-. The Assessee Also Filed A Revised Return Claiming Current Year Loss Of Rs.19,34,006/-. The Returns Were Processed Under Regular Assessment Under Section 143(3) & The Order Was Passed On 08.03.2021, Accepting The Returned Loss. Thereafter, The Assessment Was Re-Opened On Account Of Accommodation Entry Of Rs.1.5 Crores Received From Dishman Group. Hence, A Show Cause Notice U/S 148A(B) Of The Act Was Issued To The 2 Dcit Vs. United Tech Ventures Pvt Ltd Ay : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vihar Soni, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148ASection 68

Vasudev Hargundas Tejwani, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1060/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1060/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vasudev Hargundas Tejwani The Acit बनाम/ Panchmukhi Mahadev Pole Circle-3(1) V/S. Opp. Jubilee Baug Vadodara – 390 007 Raopura Vadodara – 390 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aavpt 5712 B (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) ("( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28/03/2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 27/11/2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. Vasudev Hargundas Tejwani Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 68

Sachchiyay Mata Bullion Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4443/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2022-23 Sachchiyay Mata Bullion Pvt. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Ward-4(3)(1), Shop No. 25, Patwa Chawl, Vs. 648, Aayakar Bhavan, Shaikh Menon Street, M.K. Road, Zaveri Bazaar, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002. Pan : Abfcs4174C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Devendra Jain (Virtually Appeared) Revenue By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 23-05-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23, Wherein The Ld.Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 260 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Dt. 30-07-2024 & Has Sustained The Addition Of Rs. 5,40,97,148/- U/S. 68 Of The Act & An Amount Of Rs. 18,84,08,811/- U/S. 37(1) Of The Act. 2. During The Course Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Submitted That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Held That There Was A Delay Of 67 Days In Filing The Appeal & In Absence Of Any Application Moved By The Assessee, Explaining The Reasons

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 68