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

Pushpa Devi Gupta, Kasganj vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(2), Etah

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 613/AGR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 613/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Smt. Pushpa Devi Gupta Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Mohalla-Sujawalpur, Sahawar Road Ward 3(2), Etah. Vs. Gunjdundwara, Kasganj-207123. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acdpg-5625-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Pankaj Gargh, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Aligarh [Cit(A)] On 24-01-2018 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S144 On 31-03-2014. Having Heard Rival Submissions, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under. 2. From Case Records, It Emerges That The Assessee Runs A Petrol Pump In The Name Of M/S Rishav Kisan Sewa Kendra. It Transpired That The Assessee Deposited Cash Of Rs.59.71 Lacs In Its Savings Bank Account. The Ld. Ao Added The Same To The Income Of The Assessee U/S 69 For Want Of Any Satisfactory Reply From The Assessee. The Ld. Ao Also Observed That The Said Bank Account Was Not Reflected In The Financial Statements. During First Appeal, The Assessee Furnished Additional

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Gargh, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 69

Ramu Sonkar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-33(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 164/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.164/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Ramu Sonkar Vs Ito, Ward-33(2), Kolkata 132, Ajc Bose Road, Sealdah, Kolkata-700014 Pan No. :Akups 5278 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri B.Satyanarayan Raju, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 09.09.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Appeal Is Barred By 52 Days For Which The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Application Along With Affidavit Of The Assessee Affirming Therein That The Assessee Is Not In Habit Of Accessing Emails On Regular Basis & He Depends On The Accountant For The Same Including The Coordination With The Tax Consultant. The Assessee Affirmed In The Affidavit That The Assessee Could Not Comply With The Notice As Accountant Was On Leave & It Was Only In The First Week Of January When The Notice Regarding Recovery Of Outstanding Demand Was Received In Email, The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.Satyanarayan Raju, CIT-DR

Mr. Anil Bherumal Kalal, Mumbai vs. ITO -19(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, substantial ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 1189/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Mr. Anil Bherumal Kalal Ito – 19(2)(1), Mumbai A-602, Pooja Enclave, S T Braz Road, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Behind Nanavati Hospital, Vile Parle Bandra (East), Mumbai – West, Mumbai-400056. 400051. Pan: Aabpk 3216 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subhash Chhajed, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Pradnya Gholap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.04.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Dated 30.12.2024 For A.Y. 2006-07. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Validity Of The Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act & The Assessment Thereunder: 1.A) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit (A)] Erred In Upholding The Assessment For The Assessment Year 2006-07 Framed By The Learned Assessing Officer Without Complying With The Relevant Provisions Of The Law. B) It Is Respectfully Submitted That No Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Was Served On The Appellant Within The Time Limits Prescribed Under Section 143(2) Of The Act. Accordingly, The Learned Assessing Officer Had No Jurisdiction To Proceed With Scrutiny Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. Thus, The Assessment Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed & Struck Down As Null & Void. In View Of The Above, The Appellant Prays That The Assessment Be Set Aside As Bad In Law & Struck Down As Null & Void.

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Pradnya Gholap, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 254(1)Section 54FSection 69