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

Sri. Pavan Kandkur, Hubballi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubballi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Pavan Kandkur Vs Principle Commissioner Of Cts No. 3046, Hirepeth Nagar Income Tax Near Akkikonda Aayakar Bhavan Hubballi 580020 Navanagar Pan – Anipk4256B Hubballi 580025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Balram R. Rao, Adv. Revenue By: Ms. Neera Malmotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/11/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit, Hubali Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 23.03.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Conditions 1. Precedent Being Absent The Proceedings-Initiated U/S.263 Of The Act Was Opposed To Law & The Order Passed U/S.263 Is Liable To Be Cancelled. On The Facts There Being No Error Much Less An Error Prejudicial To The 2. Interest Of Revenue, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ought To Have Refrained From Invoking The Provisions Of Sec.263 Of The Act. The Learned Commissioner Ought To Have Considered The Submissions 3. Made By The Appellant & Ought Not To Have Invoked The Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malmotra, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 5(3)Section 8

Sekar Devi, Madurai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-2(1), Madurai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1592/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1591 & 1592/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. Sekar Devi, The Income Tax Officer, 16-C/2, Nadar Vidyasala Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 2(1), South Veli Street, Madurai. Madurai – 1. Pan: Aempd 9173M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P.M. Senthil Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Madurai In Ita No.0104/2016-17 & 0076/2015-16 Both Dated 05.04.2019. The Assessments Were Framed By The Ito, Non-Corporate Ward 2(1), Madurai For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 U/S.144 R.W.S 147 & U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 13.06.2016 & 30.03.2015. 2. The Common Issue In Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Is That The Lower Authorities I.E., The Cit(A) As Well As The Ao Passed Order Without Assigning Any Proper Reasons & Justification & The Ao Framed Assessment Ex-Parte U/S.144 Of The Act In Assessment Year 2008-09 & The Cit(A) In Both The Years Has Dismissed The Appeals Of Assessee Without Deliberating On The Merits Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.M. Senthil Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

Sekar Devi, Madurai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-2(1), Madurai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1591/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1591 & 1592/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. Sekar Devi, The Income Tax Officer, 16-C/2, Nadar Vidyasala Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 2(1), South Veli Street, Madurai. Madurai – 1. Pan: Aempd 9173M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P.M. Senthil Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Madurai In Ita No.0104/2016-17 & 0076/2015-16 Both Dated 05.04.2019. The Assessments Were Framed By The Ito, Non-Corporate Ward 2(1), Madurai For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 U/S.144 R.W.S 147 & U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 13.06.2016 & 30.03.2015. 2. The Common Issue In Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Is That The Lower Authorities I.E., The Cit(A) As Well As The Ao Passed Order Without Assigning Any Proper Reasons & Justification & The Ao Framed Assessment Ex-Parte U/S.144 Of The Act In Assessment Year 2008-09 & The Cit(A) In Both The Years Has Dismissed The Appeals Of Assessee Without Deliberating On The Merits Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.M. Senthil Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68