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 CC-1(4), Kol, Kolkata vs. Ramesh Kumar Bubna, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITSSA 76/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T(Ss).A. No.76/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata ……………………………………………..……Appellant Vs. Ramesh Kumar Bubna...........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent 38, Camac Street, Kolkata - 700016. [Pan: Aeepb5725P] Appearances By: Shri P. N. Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 23, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 19.02.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 75 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal. The Revenue Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay Citing Valid & Proper Reasons. After Considering The Averments Made In The Application, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Was Conducted On 22.09.2015 In The Residential, Office & Factory Premises Of ‘Ambica’ Group At Kolkata On Which The Respondent- Assessee Was A Party. During The Search Operation, Various Documents Were Seized Including Papers Indicating Unsecured Loans Allegedly Taken

Section 132Section 250Section 68

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle.1(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S.Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITSSA 70/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kambleit(Ss)A No. 70/Ahd/2021 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Aaryavart Vs. Income-Tax, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1(3), 17-A, First Floor, Pariseema Ahmedabad Complex, C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-9 [Pan : Aadca 4844 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, Ar Respondent By: Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short) Dated 18.03.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee-Company Is Engaged In Executing Government Contracts Obtained From Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd For Construction Of Canals, Laying Of Irrigation Pipelines Within Gujarat State, Building Of Railway Bridges At Chhota-Udaipur, Dabhoi, Gujarat. The Assessee-Company Is Also Engaged In Trading Of Building Materials Like Tmt Bars, Cement, Pipes, Grit-Kapchi Etc & Investment In Immovable Properties. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of It(Ss)A No. 70/Ahd/2021 Acit Vs. Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Asst. Year :– 2017-18 - 2–

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 250