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

Neeta Rajesh Lodha, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 408/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.408/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Neeta Rajesh Lodha बिधम/ Cit(Appeals)/Nfac 20/22, Shamseth Street, National Faceless Appeal, Vs. Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- Centre (Nfac), Delhi. 400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abdpl8053A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 20.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.2,61,43,231/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding The Addition Of Rs.5,22,865/- As Commission (2% Of Sales Proceeds) For Arranging Bogus Ltcg U/S 69 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68Section 69

Mr Bhavesh Kantilal Kubadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-21(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1490/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mr. Bhavesh Kantilal बिधम/ Ito, Ward-21(1)(2) Kubadia Room No. 104, 1St Floor, Vs. 7, 2Nd Floor, Neminath Piramal Chamber, Building, S. K. Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai- (Dadar (W), Mumbai- 400012. 400028. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agrpk2377D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 24.04.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.77,02,597 U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding The Addition Of Rs.2,31,038/- As Commission (3% Of Ltcg) For Arranging Bogus Ltcg U/S 69 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68Section 69

Anand Kumar Sharma, Howrah vs. DCIT, C.C-2(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITSSA 172/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Blei.T(Ss)A. Nos. 169 To 172/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14 Anand Kumar Sharma Deputy Commissioner Of Income 50/21, Shree Arvind Road Vs Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Kolkata Salkia Howrah - 711106 [Pan: Avmps0367F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sushil Kumar Pransukha, Fca Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : The Above Captioned Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 20, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dt. 24/08/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- It(Ss)A No. 169/Kol/2023; Assessment Year 2010-11:- “1. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao By Estimating The Commission Income Earned By The Assessee At The Rate Of 0.60% On The Accommodation Entry Amounting To Rs.42.2 Crore Provided By Him & Thereby Making Addition Of Rs.25,32,000/- As Against The 2 I.T(Ss)A. Nos. 169 To 172/Kol/2023; Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14 Anand Kumar Sharma Commission Income Of Rs.6,33,000/- At The Rate Of 0.15% Offered By The Assessee. The Addition Amounting To Rs.18,99,000/- Is, Therefore, Unjustified & Needs To Be Deleted. 2. The Assessee Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Withdraw Any Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar Pransukha, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 69

Anand Kumar Sharma, Howrah vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITSSA 171/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Blei.T(Ss)A. Nos. 169 To 172/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14 Anand Kumar Sharma Deputy Commissioner Of Income 50/21, Shree Arvind Road Vs Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Kolkata Salkia Howrah - 711106 [Pan: Avmps0367F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sushil Kumar Pransukha, Fca Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : The Above Captioned Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 20, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dt. 24/08/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- It(Ss)A No. 169/Kol/2023; Assessment Year 2010-11:- “1. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao By Estimating The Commission Income Earned By The Assessee At The Rate Of 0.60% On The Accommodation Entry Amounting To Rs.42.2 Crore Provided By Him & Thereby Making Addition Of Rs.25,32,000/- As Against The 2 I.T(Ss)A. Nos. 169 To 172/Kol/2023; Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14 Anand Kumar Sharma Commission Income Of Rs.6,33,000/- At The Rate Of 0.15% Offered By The Assessee. The Addition Amounting To Rs.18,99,000/- Is, Therefore, Unjustified & Needs To Be Deleted. 2. The Assessee Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Withdraw Any Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar Pransukha, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 69

Anand Kumar Sharma, Howrah vs. DCIT.CC-2(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITSSA 170/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Blei.T(Ss)A. Nos. 169 To 172/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14 Anand Kumar Sharma Deputy Commissioner Of Income 50/21, Shree Arvind Road Vs Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Kolkata Salkia Howrah - 711106 [Pan: Avmps0367F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sushil Kumar Pransukha, Fca Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : The Above Captioned Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 20, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dt. 24/08/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- It(Ss)A No. 169/Kol/2023; Assessment Year 2010-11:- “1. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao By Estimating The Commission Income Earned By The Assessee At The Rate Of 0.60% On The Accommodation Entry Amounting To Rs.42.2 Crore Provided By Him & Thereby Making Addition Of Rs.25,32,000/- As Against The 2 I.T(Ss)A. Nos. 169 To 172/Kol/2023; Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14 Anand Kumar Sharma Commission Income Of Rs.6,33,000/- At The Rate Of 0.15% Offered By The Assessee. The Addition Amounting To Rs.18,99,000/- Is, Therefore, Unjustified & Needs To Be Deleted. 2. The Assessee Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Withdraw Any Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar Pransukha, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 69

Anand Kumar Sharma, Howrah vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITSSA 169/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Blei.T(Ss)A. Nos. 169 To 172/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14 Anand Kumar Sharma Deputy Commissioner Of Income 50/21, Shree Arvind Road Vs Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Kolkata Salkia Howrah - 711106 [Pan: Avmps0367F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sushil Kumar Pransukha, Fca Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : The Above Captioned Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 20, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dt. 24/08/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- It(Ss)A No. 169/Kol/2023; Assessment Year 2010-11:- “1. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao By Estimating The Commission Income Earned By The Assessee At The Rate Of 0.60% On The Accommodation Entry Amounting To Rs.42.2 Crore Provided By Him & Thereby Making Addition Of Rs.25,32,000/- As Against The 2 I.T(Ss)A. Nos. 169 To 172/Kol/2023; Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14 Anand Kumar Sharma Commission Income Of Rs.6,33,000/- At The Rate Of 0.15% Offered By The Assessee. The Addition Amounting To Rs.18,99,000/- Is, Therefore, Unjustified & Needs To Be Deleted. 2. The Assessee Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Withdraw Any Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar Pransukha, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 69

ITO-27(1)(5), Income Tax Office Vashi vs. J.V.Chem India, B Neelkanth Chhaya, R.B. Mehta

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2634/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhito-27(1)(5) Vs. J.V. Chem India, Room No.410, 4Th Floor, B Neelkanth Chhahya, Tower No.6, Vashi Railway R.B. Mehta Road Station, Mumbai – 400703 Ghatkopar East Maharashtra – 400077 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aabfj4268L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : S. Arunkumar Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Revenue In Electronic Mode Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) For A.Y. 2010-11. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Lied To Appreciate The Fact That The Re-Opening Of Assessment Was Done By The Ao After Taking Prior Approval & Also Recording The Reasons That Entire Purchase Of Rs. 21,15,881/- Representing Accommodation Entries (As Per Information & Investigation Report Received From Dgit (Inv.) Mumbai, Based On Information Provided By Sales Tax Department), Should Have Been Disallowed. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Quashing The Assessment Proceeding Witl.At Appreciating That In The Case Of Bogus Purchase Transactions, Hon'Ble Gujarat High Court Upheld The Disallowance Of 100% In The Case Of N.K. Proteins Which Was Subsequently Confirmed By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court.

For Appellant: S. ArunkumarFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69