What is the leading case on Section 68 of the Income Tax Act?

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (149 Taxmann.com 399) is the decision most relied on for Section 68, cited in 2,379 judgments. An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

How many judgments are there on Section 68?

BharatTax indexes 29,931 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

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

M/S. B. Nanji A, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(12), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1859/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1859/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 M/S.B. Nanji A Ito, Ward-3(3)(12) Pan : Aakfb 3025 G Vs. Ahmedabad. C/O. Mehta Lodha & Co. Chartered Accountants 105, Sakar-I, Nr. Gandhigram Railway Station, Off Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri P.D. Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05/04/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/04/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 68

Ms Anju Mahajan, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2918/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2918/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ms. Anju Mahajan, Vs Income Tax Officer, A-2/6, 1St Floor, Rajouri Garden, Ward-33(3), New Delhi-110027 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafpm2446M Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Satpal Gulati, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.04.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Fashion Co-Ordinators Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2863/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito M/S. Fashion Co-Ordinators Ward- 9 (1) Vs Private Limited, B-113, Okhla New Delhi Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-1100020 Pan No.Aaacs2016Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 68

Narayanpet Abdulla, Adoni vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Adoni

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 42/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2017-18 Narayanpet Abdulla, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Adoni – 518301. Ward – 1, Pan : Akvpa5343D. Adoni. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Mrs. S. Sandhya. Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam. Date Of Hearing: 19.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 29.12.2021 For The Ay. 2017-18 On The Following Grounds : “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Is Errenoues Both On Facts & In Law 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Deciding The Appeal Without Providing Opportunity To The Appellant. 3. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Treating The Deposits Made During The Demonetization Period Of Rs.30,32,000/- As The Income Of The Appellant Assessable U/S 69A Of The I.T. Act. 4. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.30,32,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 68 Of The I.T. Act Without Considering The Fact That The Said Amount Represents The Sale Price Received On Sale Of Eggs During The Demonetization Period. 5. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,08,000/- On The Ground That It Represents The Unexplained Expenditure.”

For Appellant: Mrs. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam

Section 250Section 68Section 69A

ACIT Non Corporate Circle-12(1), Chennai vs. M.Sumathy, Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed in terms of our above order

ITA 414/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. AR

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

The Panopat Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd, Panipat vs. ACIT, Circle, Panipat

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for

ITA 1109/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 68

The Panopat Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd, Panipat vs. ACIT, Circle, Panipat

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for

ITA 1108/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 68

Techno Tracom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 205/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

Section 153ASection 263

M/S. Balaji Investment, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc - 4 (1), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 415/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath (FCA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

Tara Kabra, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 1313/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Section 139Section 153CSection 153DSection 68

ITO 10 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. New Empire Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6360/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 68

M/S. Futuron Systems Private Limited C/O Sri. Vinod Sunder Raman, Liquidator, Bangaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2526/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessmentyear:2016-17

For Appellant: Sri Chavali Narayan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sankar Ganesh D., D.R

Section 133(6)Section 68

Link Steel Pvt Ltd, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(4), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9186/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Link Steel Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, Plot No.18, Shop No.18B, Ward-1(4), Bsr Road, Industrial Ghaziabad. Area,Ghaziabad-201010. Pan-Aaacl2591C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Tushar Singhal, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2015- 16 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Ghaziabad Dated 30.09.2019. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Failed To Appreciate That Unsecured Loans Aggregating To Rs. 5,70,000/- Had Been Received By Banking Channel From Identifiable Parties Who Had Duly Confirmed That Loans Had Been Advanced To The Appellant & As Such, Addition So Sustained Is Invalid & Untenable. 2. The Ld. Ao Failed To Make A Reasonable Enquiry About Creditworthiness Of Lenders & Made Addition U/S 68 Without Application Of Mind & Confirmed By Cit (A), Ghaziabad. 3. Out Of Addition Made By Ao & Further Confirmed By Cit(A) Of Rs. 570000/-, Addition Of Rs. 415000/- Was Completely Wrong, Since Cash Was Deposited Before Loan Given Date, Was Only Rs. 25000/- Whereas Ld Ao Considered The Same As Rs. 415000/- [Assessment Year : 2015-16] 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter Vary & / Or Withdraw Any Or All The Above Grounds Of Appeal.” 2. The Only Effective Ground In This Appeal Is Against The Sustaining Of Addition Of Rs.5,70,000/-.

Section 143(3)Section 68

Usha Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 44(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 9107/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Usha Sharma, Vs Ito, A-89, Ff, Vikaspuri, Ward-44(1), New Delhi-110018. New Delhi. Pan-Bozps9124K Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2010- 11 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Delhi Dated 09.09.2019. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That The Assessing Officer Has Wrongly & Illegally Make The Addition Of Rs.22,60,000/- In The Income Of The Assessee By Applying Provisions Of Section 68 Of Income Tax Act, 1961. The Amount Was Deposited In Cash In The Bank Account Which Does Not Call For Addition U/S 68 Of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That The Learned Cit Appeal Has Wrongly & Illegally Confirmed The Addition Made By The Ao By Applying Provsiions Of Section 68 Of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That The Assessee Had The Explanation Of Detail Of Cash Deposited Made From Own Funds, Sale Of The Property & The Amount Received From Mother. 4. On The Facts & In The Circumstances The Addition Of Rs.22,60,000/- In The Income Of The Assessee May Kindly Be Deleted.” [Assessment Year : 2010-11] 2. At The Time Of Hearing, No One Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, A Letter Is Received By The Registry On Behalf Of The Ld. Authorized Representative Of The Assessee Stating That Written Submission & Paper Book Have Already Been Submitted Vide Speed Post. It Was Prayed That Since The Assessment Was Ex-Parte So That Assessment May Be Restored To The File Of The Assessing Officer (“Ao”).

Section 68