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

P and R Agri Energy Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 807/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 807/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 808/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S P&R Agri Energy Pvt. Ltd. Ito Ward 4(4) 2Nd Floor Quiet Office No.7 Room No.528 5Th Floor बनाम/ Vs. Sector 35-A Chandigarh Aaykar Bhawan Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecp-9841-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V.K. Aggarwal– Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Twin Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010- 11 & 2011-12 Have Identical Facts. The Appeal For Ay 2010-11 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 11-06-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Aggarwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

DCIT, Central Circle, 1-(4), Kolkata vs. Kkalpana Industries India Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2589/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2589/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 4Th Floor, Room No.3, New Kolkata B.K.Market, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Pandey, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 10.07.2024 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. Shri Pankaj Pandey, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Barred By 79 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Accordingly, Delay Of 79 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Dr That The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Originally Processed U/S.143(1) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Assessment Was Reopened By Issuing Of Notice U/S.148 Of The Act Dated

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, Addl. CIT-Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

M/S Raju Upadhyay, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 475/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.475/िद"ी/2016(िन.व. 2011-12) Raju Upadhyay, B-5/19, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi 110053 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaqpu-9644-Q बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Ward-34(2), New Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By: S/Shri Shubham Jha & Sahil Upadhayay, Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By: Shri B.S. Anand, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 23.10.2015, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Shri Shubham Jha, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessee Is A Document Writer In The District Courts, Delhi. The Assessee Entered Into An Agreement To Sell Dated 05.05.2010 With Vardhman Business P. Ltd. For Sale Of Agricultural Land Admeasuring 68 Bigha 10 Biswa (14.25 Acre Approximately) Situated At Village Sabhapur, River Belt, Delhi For A Total Consideration Of Rs. 10,45,50,000/-.

For Appellant: S/Shri Shubham Jha & Sahil UpadhayayFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Anand, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 68