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

S G Commercial, Jhansi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra

Appeals stand allowed

ITA 364/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.364/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.365/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.368/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.370/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19; Smc Bench) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.366/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.367/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.369/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.371/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit (Central Circle) M/Ss G Commercial बनाम/ Vs. 452/2A, Cp Mission Compound Agra Jhansi Up 284003

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271DSection 40A(3)Section 68

Sanjay Sharma, Gwalior vs. ITO 3(2), Gwalior, Ayaker Bhavan City Centre

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 25/AGR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 25/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Shri Sanjay Sharma Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 51, Pg Enclave, Patel Nagar, Ward 3(2), Gwalior. Vs. City Centre, Gwalior (Mp). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aubps-3595-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. S.C. Jain, Ca – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] On 21-11-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 28-12-2016. The Assessee Provides Services Of Supervision & Quality Control. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Assessed Total Income At Rs.45.48 Lacs After Various Additions / Disallowances. The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Assessment Against Which The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is – (I) Addition Of Unaccounted Expenditure For Rs.20.88 Lacs; (Ii) Addition Of Sundry Creditors U/S 68 For Rs.13.50 Lacs; (Iii) Addition U/S 56(2) For Rs.1.43 Lacs. It Could Also Be Seen That The Assessee Has Not Made Any Representation During First

For Appellant: Sh. S.C. Jain, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 68

K.S. City Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 17/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 17/Agr/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) K.S. City Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-2, बनाम/ 301, Silver Arc Plaza, 20/1, Gwalior Vs. New Palasia, Indore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacck-8217-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ca – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gwalior [Cit(A)] On 23-12-2014 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 22-11-2011. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition U/S 68 For Rs.25 Lacs. Having Heard Rival Submissions, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. 2. Pursuant To Search Action On Assessee Group On 11-03-2010, Ld. Ao, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Noted That The Assessee Issued Share Capital Of Rs.25 Lacs (Including Share Premium Of Rs.24.95 Lacs) To Smt. Alka Bansal. The Ld. Ao Added The Same U/S 68 For Want Of Sufficient Documentary Evidences.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

R D Tea Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1555/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1555/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 R D Tea Limited……………………..……………………………..………….……Appellant Dhandhania House, 2Nd Floor, 4, Middleton Street, Kolkata – 700071. [Pan: Aabcr3010M] Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata…..……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 22, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Company Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 30.09.2012 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.67,34,990/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Assessed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 19.03.2015 By Assessing Total Income Of Rs.86,23,780/- Which Was Subsequently Rectified U/S 154 Of The Act On 27.04.2015 By Assessing Total Income Of Rs.83,90,960/-. Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing A Notice U/S 148 Of The Act On 27.03.2019 After Obtaining Approval From The Competent Authority. In Response To Such Notice, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Again Declaring The Same Income As Earlier I.E. Rs.67,34,990/-. During The

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 68