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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata vs. Pujita Merchandise Private Limited, Kolkata

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1293/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1293/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata………………………..………………….…..……Appellant Vs. Pujita Merchandise Pvt. Ltd.…..….........…………..…........……...…..…..Respondent 37E, Block-B, New Alipore, Kolkata – 700053. [Pan: Aadcp7771M] Appearances By: Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 06, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 07, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 12.03.2024 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. At The Outset, We Note That There Is A Delay Of 27 Days In Filing The Present Appeal For Which Application For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record, Wherein, The Reasons For The Delay Have Duly Been Mentioned. Considering The Averments Made In The Application, We Find Sufficient Cause For The Delay. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate Upon The Matter. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year In Question On 27.09.2012 Reporting A Total Income Of Rs.11,100/-. Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass Followed By Issuance Of Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act & In Response To

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Ganesan Nakkeeran, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-14(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2089/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2089/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri Ganesan Nakkeeran Ito बनाम/ Old No.3, New No.5, Non-Corporate Ward-14(1) 9Th Cross Street, Shanthi Nagar, Chennai. Vs. Adambakkam, Chennai-600 088. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpn-6217-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri K. Meenakshi Sundaram (Itp)– Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan(Addl.Cit) -Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 17-06-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S.144 R.W.S 147 Of The Act On 29-12-2018. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.51.20 Lacs As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The Act. The Ld. Ar Has Prayed For Another Opportunity Of Hearing Before Lower Authorities

For Appellant: Shri K. Meenakshi Sundaram (ITP)– Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan(Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 68

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Vireet Investments Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 938/DEL/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumaracit, Circle 17 (1) Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 21D, Friends Colony West, New Delhi – 110 065. (Pan : Aaacv2033M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 Date Of Order : 06.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2004-05 On 31.10.2004 Declaring Income Of Rs.34,80,69,911/-. The Same Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The 2 Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) On 28.12.2004. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. In Response, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Attended From Time To Time & Submitted Relevant Information As Called For. 3. The Assessee Was Incorporated On 03.10.1983 With The Main Objects, As Per Memorandum Of Association, To Acquire & Hold Shares, Stocks, Debentures, Debenture Stocks, Bonds, Obligations & Securities Issued Or Guaranteed By Any Company Constituted Or Carried On Business In The Republic Of India. After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Make The Following Additions In The Assessment Completed U/S 143 (3) Of The Act :-

For Appellant: Shri Manish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 48Section 80G