Summary: This article explains how unexplained cash credit additions under Section 68 can be effectively defended with the right legal and factual strategy. It clarifies that once a credit appears in a taxpayer’s books, the burden lies entirely on the taxpayer to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. Rising scrutiny after demonetization has led to increased additions involving family gifts, loans, share capital, and business receipts. The article highlights practical defence tools such as robust documentation, proving the real existence of the lender or donor, establishing financial capacity through bank balances or asset sales, and presenting a coherent, commercially reasonable explanation for the transaction. It emphasizes proactive disclosure, consistency across records, and the importance of appellate remedies, where genuine cases often succeed. The discussion also notes that Section 68 cannot be applied mechanically and may fail if the basic legal conditions are not met.
Unexplained Cash Credits (Section 68): Defence Strategies That Work
I still remember the panic in Rajesh’s voice (Name changed) when he called me three years ago.
“They’re adding ₹85 lakhs to my income. They’re saying the money my father gave me is unexplained. This will destroy my business.”
Rajesh isn’t alone. In my 15 years of tax practice, Section 68 additions have probably caused more sleepless nights for taxpayers than any other provision. I’ve seen genuine transactions get questioned, family gifts/transactions treated as income, and legitimate business receipts labelled as “unexplained.”
But here’s what I’ve also seen: with the right approach and proper documentation, most Section 68 additions can be successfully defended.
Let us explore the real-world problems and solutions:
1. Understanding the Beast: Section 68?
Section 68 is deceptively simple. It says that if you show a credit in your books (or receive money) and you can’t explain its nature and source, it gets added to your income.
The burden is entirely on you. The moment the Assessing Officer (AO) raises a question, you need to prove three things:
- Identity – Who gave you the money?
- Creditworthiness – Did they have the capacity to give it?
- Genuineness – Was the transaction real?
Fail on any one of these, and you’re looking at an addition. Plus interest. Plus potential penalty.
Sounds straightforward, right? In practice, it’s anything but that.
2. The Real Problem: Why Section 68 Cases Are Increasing
I’ve noticed a disturbing trend over the past five years. Section 68 additions have become the go-to weapon for Assessing Officers, especially after demonetization. Some cases:
- Failure to bring the giver of fund
- Cash gift to children
- Share application money
- Business advances
This is where good legal defence becomes critical.
3. Defence Strategy 1: Logical Documentation
Let me be blunt: if your documentation is weak, your case is weak. Simple.
Here’s what you need to do:
For Share Capital/Application Money:
- Complete KYC of subscribers (PAN, address proof, bank statements)
- Their income tax returns showing source of funds
- Board resolution/shareholders agreement
- Proof of money trail (their bank statements showing debit, your account showing credit)
- Valuation report if required
For Loans (Family/Friends/Business):
- Written loan agreement (notarized helps)
- Lender’s ITR, bank statements, net worth statement
- Proof of transaction through banking channels
- Interest terms and repayment schedule
- Confirmation letter from lender
For Gifts:
- Gift deed (mandatory for immovable property, advisable for cash)
- Relationship proof (if claiming exemption u/s 56)
- Donor’s capacity to give (ITR, bank statements, source of funds)
- Affidavit explaining reason for gift
- Proof of transfer through proper banking channels
For Business Receipts/Advances:
- Proper books of accounts
- Ledger accounts of parties
- Party confirmation
- Delivery challans/invoices
- GST returns showing the transaction
The key principle I follow: assume the worst. Assume the AO will question everything. Document accordingly.
4. Defence Strategy 2: The Identity Trap
Here’s a mistake I see repeatedly: taxpayers think producing a PAN card and address proof establishes “identity.”
It doesn’t. Not anymore.
Establish Living, Breathing Identity:
- Get the person/entity to file an affidavit confirming the transaction
- If possible, have them appear before the AO (in person or virtually)
- Provide their contact details and ensure they’re reachable
- Show they filed their own ITR declaring the corresponding entry
- In case of legal entity, prove operational existence (utility bills, rent agreement, employee details)
In that Mumbai case, we eventually succeeded at ITAT. How? We got the director to appear via video conference, explained that the registered office had shifted (proved with new address), and submitted fresh utility bills. The addition was deleted.
The lesson: identity must be provable, not just on paper, but in reality.
5. Defence Strategy 3: Creditworthiness
This is where I’ve won most of my cases.
Creditworthiness isn’t about annual income alone. It’s about capacity at the point of transaction.
How to Prove Creditworthiness:
1. Bank Statement is King: Show the bank balance before the transaction. If your father had ₹25 lakhs in his account and gave you ₹20 lakhs, creditworthiness is established. The source of that ₹25 lakhs is his headache, not yours (subject to exceptions).
2. Asset-Based Capacity: Your father doesn’t need income if he sold property. Show:
- Sale deed of property he sold
- Bank credit of sale proceeds
- Subsequent transfer to you
- Historical ITRs: Show multiple years of returns establishing earning capacity and savings pattern. Even ₹5 lakh annual savings over 10 years is ₹50 lakhs capacity.
- Net Worth Statement: A CA-certified net worth statement showing total assets minus liabilities. This is powerful for businessmen and professionals.
- Gift Received Cycle: If the money came to the lender as a gift from his parents, show that chain. It’s tedious, but it works.
6. Defence Strategy 4: Genuineness – Tell a Believable Story
How to Establish Genuineness:
Contextual Sense: Why did this transaction happen?
- Family gift? Explain the occasion (marriage, education, medical need)
- Business loan? Show why you needed it, what you did with it
- Share capital? Show credible business plan
Commercial Reasonableness: Would a reasonable person do this transaction?
- 0% interest loan from stranger? Suspicious.
- 0% interest loan from father? Perfectly normal.
- ₹50 lakh premium on ₹10 shares? Better have a strong valuation.
Follow the Money: What did you do with the money?
- Received ₹30 lakhs loan, immediately lent ₹28 lakhs to another person? Red flag.
- Received ₹30 lakhs, bought machinery, expanded business? Genuine.
Consistency Across Documents:
- Your loan agreement says ₹20 lakhs, but only ₹15 lakhs credited? Explain the ₹5 lakh gap.
- Gift deed dated January, but money received in March? Explain the delay.
Human Touch: In cases involving family/friends, a personal letter explaining the background helps. I’ve submitted letters from fathers explaining, “I worked 35 years to save this money. I’m giving it to my daughter for her business because I believe in her.”Courts are human. Context matters.
7. Defence Strategy #5: Proactive Offense – Filing Before AO Asks
If you know a credit might be questioned, don’t wait for the AO to ask. File a detailed explanation along with your ITR or during assessment proceedings.
What to File:
- Detailed note explaining the credit
- All supporting documents
- Legal citations showing the transaction is covered by law
- Offer for party confirmation/appearance
8. Defence Strategy 6: The Appellate Advantage – Don’t Give Up
Here’s something most taxpayers don’t realize: your chances improve dramatically at appellate stages.
In my experience:
- AO stage: High addition rate (60-70% of questioned credits get added)
- CIT(A) stage: 40-50% additions deleted or substantially reduced
- ITAT stage: 60-70% deletions if you have reasonable case
Why this disparity?
At AO level, there’s an institutional bias toward making additions. The thinking is: “Let the appellate forum decide.” There’s little downside for the AO in adding, but potential questions if they don’t.
At CIT(A) and ITAT, there’s better appreciation of law and facts. Judicial members understand that genuine transactions get questioned too.
9. Defence Strategy 7: The Nuclear Option – Shifting the Burden
There’s one defence that’s often overlooked: questioning the AO’s basis for invoking Section 68.
Section 68 applies only if there’s a “sum found credited” in your books during the year. If the credit appeared in an earlier year and you explained it then, it can’t be questioned again.
Similarly, if the AO is adding something that’s not actually a “credit” (for example, estimating cash sales), Section 68 doesn’t apply at all.
Final Remarks:
If you’re reading this because you’re facing a Section 68 addition, I want you to know: you’re not alone, and there is hope.
I’ve defended and won cases ranging from ₹5 lakhs to ₹10 crores. I’ve seen additions deleted at every forum—CIT(A), ITAT, High Court.
But I’ll also be honest: not every case is winnable. Sometimes the transaction genuinely can’t be proved. Sometimes the facts are against you.
Remember Rajesh, whom I mentioned at the start? We fought his case for two years. His father appeared before the CIT(A), we submitted 15 years of his ITRs showing savings pattern, we got his siblings to confirm they received similar gifts.
The ₹85 lakh addition was deleted. Rajesh saved his business.
******
In case you have any concern and queries or need any support regarding advisory, compliance and litigation in taxation, you may like to contact us.
Abhinarayan Mishra, FCA, FCS, LLB, IP, RP; Managing Partner, SAM Law Associates LLP; KPAM & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Dwarka, New Delhi; +9910744992, ca.abhimishra@gmail.com
Author Bio
