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

Suchitra Shashikant Khavare, Hatkanangle, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ichalkaranji

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

ITA 1426/PUN/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2024

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1426/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Suchitra Shashikant Khavare, V The Income Tax Officer, At Post Shiroli Pulachi S Ichalkaranji. Htkanangle, Konhapur – 416122. Pan: Aowpk8959A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawalil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 17.05.2024 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A), Nfac Erred In, Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Thereby Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) On The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.15,00,000/- U/S 69 Representing Investment In Immovable Property.” Submission Of Ld.Ar : 2. The Ld.Ar For The Assessee Submitted That This Is An Appeal Against Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The Quantum Addition Has Been Set-Aside By Itat To Ld.Cit(A) Vide Its Order In Ita No.1410/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14. Submission Of Ld.Dr : 3. Ld.Dr For The Revenue Submitted That Penalty May Also Be Set-Aside To The Ld.Cit(A).

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Mohammad Tipu Sultan Khan, Darbhanga vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Darbhanga

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 284/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.284/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohammad Tipu Sultan Khan ……..……………………....Appellant M/S Sultania Traders, Village-Asapur, Po Behara, Darbhanga, Bihar – 847201. [Pan: Awzpk0521F] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Darbhanga.….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 19, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.05.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Did Not File Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2017-18. A Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued Directing The Assessee To File A Return Of Income But No Response Was Received From The Assessee. Subsequently, The Assessing Officer Issued Another Notice U/S 142(1)(Ii) Of The Act Requiring The Assessee To Explain Cash Deposits Made During The Demonetization Period. However This Time Also, The Assessee Failed To Respond To The Notice As Well. The Assessing Officer After Considering

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 142(1)(ii)Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Trichy vs. Shri. Somasundaram Venkatesan, Pudukkottai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 481/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.481/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Somasundaram Venkatesan, Income Tax, 4656, East Street, Central Circle 1, Pudukkottai 622 001. Trichy. [Pan:Abrpv2396J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Venkatesh, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.12.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Chennai-19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised Ground Nos. 2 To 2.3 Of Appeal Amongst Which The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration Is To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Value Of Excess Gold Stock In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkatesh, FCA
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147