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

Dinesh, Erode vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Erode

In the result, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2970/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2970/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Dinesh Income Tax Officer No.94, Sullikarudu, Ward-2(1), Getticheviyur, Erode, Erode Tamil Nadu-638 110. [Pan: Ceepd6297J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. S.Bhupendran, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.R.Raghupathy, Addl. Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1068907916(1) Dated 20.09.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), For The Assessment Year 2017-18. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assessee Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 20.09.2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi. 2.0 The Only Issue Raised By The Assessee, Through Its Grounds Of Appeal, Is Regarding An Addition Of Rs.6,78,500/- Made By The Ld.Ao On Account Of Cash Deposits In Assessee’S Bank Accounts. The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That It Started The Business Of Money

For Appellant: Mr. S.Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.R.Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 68Section 69

Upen Vimalbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(5)(Currently Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITSSA 2/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. No.02/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Upen Vimalbhai Shah, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 202, Vamndan Flats, 74, Ward-4(2)(5), Jain Nagar Society, Pladi, (Currently Ito Ward4(2)(3)) Ahmedabad-380007 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Afaps2459A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chirag Shah, A.R. Respondent By: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit Dr 26.12.2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 25.03.2025 O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal -: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, (In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”), Ahmedabad Vide Order Dated 14.12.2023 Passed For A.Y. 2011-12. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 2. “1. The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of Income Tax Act By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The First Appellate Authority U/S 250 Is Bad In Law & Deserved To Be Uncalled For. 2. The Assessing Officer As Well As First Appellate Authority Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Adding & Confirming Respectively The Unexplained Income Of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The Same Deserves To Be Deleted. 3. The Appellant Craves To Reserve His Right To Add, Alter, Amend, Or Delete Any Ground Of Appeal During The Course Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)