Section 69 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.103

Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 103 (Unexplained investment) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 103 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 69 is CIT v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (367 ITR 466), cited in 1,558 of the 9,011 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 69

CIT v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd.
367 ITR 466 · 2014 · Supreme Court
1,558
citing judgments

Taxing statutes are presumed to operate prospectively unless a clear contrary intention for retrospective application is evident. The law applicable for determining tax liability is that which stands on the first day of the assessment year, following the principle that law looks forward, not backward (lex prospicit non respicit).

Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE
281 CTR 241 · 2015 · Supreme Court
1,335
citing judgments

An assessee must be given an opportunity to cross-examine third parties whose statements are relied upon for adverse findings. Failure to provide this opportunity is a serious flaw rendering the order a nullity.

K.P. Varghese v. ITO
131 ITR 597 · 1981 · Supreme Court
989
citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made merely on the basis of a difference in valuation of assets or a Valuation Officer's report without establishing actual understatement of consideration or the source of unexplained funds through proper enquiry. The Assessing Officer must conduct proper enquiry and satisfy the conditions for making such additions.

CIT v. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd.
418 ITR 315 · 2019 · Supreme Court
408
citing judgments

Income tax additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of uncorroborated statements or allegations. The Revenue must bring on record sufficient material and allow the assessee to produce evidence to prove such additions.

Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT
30 ITR 181 · 1956 · Supreme Court
396
citing judgments

If the Assessing Officer or appellate authority does not rebut the facts stated in an affidavit, those facts are binding on the tax authorities.

T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros.
82 ITR 50 · 1971 · Supreme Court
382
citing judgments

A mistake apparent from the record under Section 154 must be an obvious and patent error, not one that requires a long and elaborate process of reasoning or where two opinions are conceivable. Rectification under Section 154 is not permissible for re-examining issues already considered or requiring detailed re-computation.

CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P.) Ltd.
385 ITR 346 · 2016 · High Court
371
citing judgments

A statement made by an assessee under Section 131 during search proceedings, without any corroborating incriminating material found during the search, cannot solely constitute incriminating evidence for making additions in assessments under Section 153A or 153C.

CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan
237 ITR 570 · 1999 · Supreme Court
308
citing judgments

An unsatisfactory explanation for an amount credited in the books does not automatically result in it being deemed as the assessee's income under Section 68. The initial onus is on the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction.

Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT
34 ITR 807 · 1958 · Supreme Court
306
citing judgments

The onus lies on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the source and nature of any unexplained cash or credit entries; if they fail to do so, the amount is treated as taxable income. The Income Tax Department is not required to locate the exact source of such funds, and this principle applies even if Section 68 is not strictly invoked.

Canara Housing Development Co. v. DCIT
49 Taxmann.com 98 · 2014 · High Court
283
citing judgments

Proceedings under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act are not confined solely to incriminating material found during a search, and the Assessing Officer can assess total income for the relevant years.

Judgments on Section 69

Chandra Kumar Jain, Damoh vs. Income Tax Officer, Damoh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 70/JAB/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2011-12 Chandra Kumar Jain, Vs. Nfac, Delhi, (Jurisdiction Prop. M/S Chandra & Sons, 14, 121 Officer, Ito, Damoh, M.P. Kirana Merchant, Bakoli Kirana Line, Damoh, M.P. Pan:Acjpj7460N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 29.12.2023 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ito, Ward, Damoh Dated 12.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of Ld. Ao Being Based On Third Party'S Statements Without Allowing Their Cross Verification & Hence Addition Made Are Against Law & Natural Justice As Has Been Held In The Case Of C. Vasantlal & Co. V. Cit [1962] 45 Itr 206 By Supreme Court. Hence Additions Of Rs 4,65,700/-And Rs 10,525,/- May Kindly Be Deleted. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Additions Made By Ao Of Rs. 4,76,225/-Without Considering The Fact That Bill Issued By M/S Narmada Sugar Pvt Ltd Narsinghpur.As Considered To Be That Of Assessee Was Not In Assessee Name & Hence Addition Was Based On Mere Assumptions & Presumptions.

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 69

Link Tracom Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 345/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.345/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Link Tracom Pvt. Ltd...………………………………………...….……….Appellant 3 Block B Room No.5, C R Avenue 1St Floor, Kolkata- 700072. [Pan: Aabcl5404H] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata.………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu & Rajeev Mukherjee, Advocates, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Smt. Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Bengaluru [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Filed Its Return Of Income On 20.12.2017 Electronically For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,66,139/-. The Return Was Duly Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 148 Of The Act With Reasons That The Assessee Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs.5,00,000/- During The Demonetization Period Commencing From 09.11.2016 To 31.12.2016. In Compliance To The Same, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,66,140/-. Thereafter, Statutory Notices U/S 142(1) & 143(2) Of The Act Were Issued To The Assessee & The Assessee Complied To The

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271ASection 69Section 69A

Compact Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle 3(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 200/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.200/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Compact Agencies Pvt. Ltd……………………………………...….……….Appellant Room No.1A, 20B, West Bengal, East India House, Bbd Bag, West Bengal-700069. [Pan: Aadcc6607K] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-3(1), Kolkata.….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.08.2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 88 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Such Delay Explaining Reasons For The Delay. We, After Perusing The Petition Made In The Application, Satisfy That There Were Bona Fide & Sufficient Reasons For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay & Admit This Appeal For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Declaring Total Income As Nil. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 69Section 69C

Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1909/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1906/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1907/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1908/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1909/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram Dcit बनाम/ 83/1, Smt Towers, Teacher’S Colony, Central Circle-3 Vs. Karamadai, Coimbatore-641104. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Afbpk-6901-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2018-19 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1908/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1906/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1907/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1908/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1909/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram Dcit बनाम/ 83/1, Smt Towers, Teacher’S Colony, Central Circle-3 Vs. Karamadai, Coimbatore-641104. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Afbpk-6901-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2018-19 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1907/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1906/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1907/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1908/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1909/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram Dcit बनाम/ 83/1, Smt Towers, Teacher’S Colony, Central Circle-3 Vs. Karamadai, Coimbatore-641104. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Afbpk-6901-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2018-19 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1906/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1906/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1907/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1908/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1909/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram Dcit बनाम/ 83/1, Smt Towers, Teacher’S Colony, Central Circle-3 Vs. Karamadai, Coimbatore-641104. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Afbpk-6901-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2018-19 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69