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

Sanjaykumar Gangaram Patel, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Patan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 633/AHD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2006-07 Sanjaykumar Gangaram Patel Ito, Ward-2 Chokshino Dhhar Vs Patan. Nr.Chabutra Unjha, Dist : Mehsana. Pan : Aqlpp 7700 M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.V. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/05/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13 /05/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.12.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar Relating To The Asst.Year 2006-07. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Is That The Assessee Is An Individual & Stated To Be In Public Service. For The Asst.Year 2006-07, The Assessee Has Not Filed His Return Of Income. Annual Information Return Details Available With The Income-Tax Department Revealed That The Assessee Has Made Cash Deposits Of Rs.13,25,490/- In Bank Account With Hdfc Bank, Unjha. As The Assessee Has Not Filed Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Reopened Based On The Information Received In Air & After Verification, Notice Under 2

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 271(1)(c)

Vijay Dinkar Jadhav (HUF), Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 531/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.531/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vijay Dinkar Jadhav (Huf), The Assistant Row House No.1, Suyojit Garden, Vs Commissioner Of Income Near Sahadev Nagar, Gangapur Tax, Circle-2, Nashik. Road, Nashik – 422 005. Pan: Aachj 8340 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte– Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 21/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune, Appeal No.Pn/Cit(A)-12/376/2015-16 Dated 15.12.2016 For The Assessment Year 2008-09.The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Assessing Officer Have Erred In Initiating Reopening Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Is Invalid & Bad In Law, Therefore Appeal Needs To Be Quashed. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Lower Authorities Have Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.41,20,000/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, By Rejecting Appellants Contentions In This Regards.

Section 133ASection 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68