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

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Gsp Power Systems Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITA 1273/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Gsp Power Systems Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, New Delhi 22, 3Rd Floor, Main Market, Moti Nagar, New Delhi Pan: Aaccg0581H (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.40/Del/2024 [Arising Out Of Ita No.1273/Del/2024] Assessment Year: 2018-19 Gsp Power Systems Pvt. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Ward-10(1), 22, 3Rd Floor, Main Market, New Delhi Moti Nagar, New Delhi Pan: Aaccg0581H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Department By Ms. Suman Malik, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.06.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1273/Del/2024 & Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No. 40/Del/2024 For Assessment Year 2018- 19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1060727888(1), Dated 09.02.2024, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused. 2. We Notice At The Outset That The Assessee’S Cross Objection Herein C.O. No. 40/Del/2024 Goes To The Root Of The Matter Since Challenging Validity Of The Impugned Assessment Itself Framed By The Learned Assessing Authority On 31St May, 2021. This Is For The Precise Reason That The Assessee’S Case Was Taken Up For Scrutiny On The Twin Issues Of Non-Furnishing Of Quantitative Details & “Investments/Advances/Loans” Whereas It Ended Up In Adding An Amount Of Rs.12,59,97,711/- As Unexplained Cash Credits Under Section 68/69A Of The Act, Which Stands Deleted In The Lower Appellate Discussion. This Is What Leaves The Revenue & The Assessee Aggrieved Who Have Filed Their Instant Appeal & Cross Objection; Respectively.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Lalit Kumar Prop. Mis Babu Ram Hem Raj, Faridkot

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 686/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.685/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.686/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit Central Circle-1 Shri Lalit Kumar बनाम/ Sco 1-6, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Bvm School (Prop. Lalit & Co.& M/S Babu Ram Hem Raj) Vs. New Grain Market, Faridkot - 151203 Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana-141001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adapk-3617-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. Co No.28/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. 685/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. Co No.29/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. 686/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Lalit Kumar Dcit Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Sco 1-6, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Bvm School (Prop. Lalit & Co. & M/S Babu Ram Hem Raj) Vs. New Grain Market, Faridkot - 151203 Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana-141001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adapk-3617-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma (Cit) & Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Drs

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma (CIT) & Shri Vivek Vardhan
Section 143(3)Section 68

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Lalit Kumar Prop. Lalit Co., Mis Babu Ram Hem Raj, Faridkot

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 685/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.685/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.686/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit Central Circle-1 Shri Lalit Kumar बनाम/ Sco 1-6, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Bvm School (Prop. Lalit & Co.& M/S Babu Ram Hem Raj) Vs. New Grain Market, Faridkot - 151203 Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana-141001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adapk-3617-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. Co No.28/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. 685/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. Co No.29/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. 686/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Lalit Kumar Dcit Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Sco 1-6, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Bvm School (Prop. Lalit & Co. & M/S Babu Ram Hem Raj) Vs. New Grain Market, Faridkot - 151203 Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana-141001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adapk-3617-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma (Cit) & Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Drs

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma (CIT) & Shri Vivek Vardhan
Section 143(3)Section 68

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Gautam Malhotra, Faridkot

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 677/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.677/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit- Central Circle-2 Shri Gautam Malhotra Sco 1-6, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ S/O Shri Deep Malhotra Kitchlu Nagar Near Bvm School Old Cantt Road Vs. Ludhiana-141001. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aigpm-9197-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manav Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana [Cit(A)] Dated 30-03-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S.143(3)Of The Act On 30-12-2019. The Sole Grievance Of The Revenue Is Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.305 Lacs As Made By Ld. Ao U/S 68 Of The Act. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68