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

Lalit Kumar Srivastava, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer 6(2), Lucknow

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

ITA 640/LKW/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Aug 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2020-21 Shri Lalit Kumar Srivastava, Vs. Ito/Assessment Unit, Income House No. 7/2, C-Block, Rajajipuram, Tax Department, Lucknow Talkatora, Lucknow-226017 Pan: Arxps1950P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Smt. Pratibha Singh, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.08.2026 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 31.03.2026, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer, That Was Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2020-21 On 28.01.2025. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: “Ground No. 1-Non-Condonation Of Delay Of 254 Days: Error In Law & On Facts That The Learned Citia)/Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal In Limine On The Ground Of Delay Of 254 Days Without Properly Appreciating: (A) The Bona Fide Health Issues Of The Appellant In The Period Immediately Following The Assessment Order, As Narrated In The Statement Of Facts [Annexure-5); (B) His Lack Of Technological Proficiency In Navigating Faceless Proceedings; (C) Non-Updation Of Email/Mobile On The Income Tax Portal Resulting In Non-Receipt Of Intimations; & (D) Bona Fide Reliance On A Tax Consultant Who Failed To Promptly Inform Him Of The Adverse Order All Of Which Individually & Cumulatively Constitute 'Sufficient Cause' Within The Meaning Of Section 253(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Pratibha Singh, Addl CIT DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 147Section 148ASection 253(5)Section 69

Urvashi Lalit, Lucknow vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Dept., NFAC

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

ITA 372/LKW/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Aug 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2019-20 Urvashi Lalit, Vs. Ito, C7/2, Rajaji Puram, Lucknow Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Pan: Amgpl6865L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Sudhakar Shukla, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2026 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 6.02.2026, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Dated 7.02.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Illegal Rejection Of Appeal On Delay That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred Both In Law & On Facts In Rejecting The Appeal Solely On The Ground Of Delay Of 115 Days, Without Properly Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Explaining Such Delay. 2. Failure To Condone Delay Despite Sufficient Cause That The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Had Shown Sufficient, Reasonable & Bona Fide Cause For The Delay, Which Has Not Been Found To Be False Or Mala Fide & Thus Ought To Have Condoned The Delay In Accordance With Settled Principles Of Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sudhakar Shukla, DR
Section 147