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

Bharat Laxman Bhiwapurkar, Thane vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 3413/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhbharat Laxman Vs. Ito, Ward 1(5), Bhiwapurkar, 204, Room No. 14, B Wing, Oxford, Regency Heights, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Azad Nagar, Kolshet, Road No. 16Z, Wagle, Thane - 400602 Ind. Estate, Thane-400604 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Abnpb8487A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Subodh Ratnaparkhi Respondent By : S. Arunkumar Date Of Hearing 26.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 03.08.2023 For A.Y. 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Hon. Cit (A) Erred In Upholding Re-Opening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, Inspite Of The Fact That There Was No Incriminating Material Pertaining To The Appellant With Regards To Alleged On-Money Paid For Purchase Of Flat From Cosmos Group & Therefore The Re-Opening Was In Absence Of Any Independent & Valid Belief On The Part Of The Id Ao That Any Income Chargeable To Tax Had Escaped Assessment. The Re-Opening Of Assessment U/S 147 Being Bad-In-Law, The Asst. Order Flowing Therefrom, Being The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Is Also Invalid & Bad In Law & Hence The Same May Be Quashed 2. The Hon Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 31,00,000/-, U/S 69 Of The 1.1 Act, 1961, As Unexplained Investment Towards Alleged On- Money Paid Towards Purchase Of Flat No. A-07, 7Th Floor, Twilight, Cosmos Horizon, Ghodbunder Road, Thane (W) To Cosmos Group, Ignoring The Contentions Of The Appellant That There Was No Incriminating

For Appellant: Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: S. Arunkumar
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nellore vs. Gopisetty Satyanarayana, Nellore

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

ITA 652/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyनिर्धारण आ.अपी.सं अपीलधर्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / वर्ा / A.Y. Appellant Respondent / Ita No. Gopisetty Deputy Commissioner Satyanarayana, Of Income Tax, 2010-11 441/Hyd/2019 Nellore Circle-1, [Pan: Aiipg4150B] Nellore Deputy Commissioner Gopisetty Of Income Tax, Satyanarayana, 652/Hyd/2019 2010-11 Circle-1, Nellore Nellore [Pan: Aiipg4150B] निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/02/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 29/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order(S) Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Tirupati (“Learned Cit(A)”), In The Case Sri G. Satyanarayana (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2010-11, Both Assessee & Revenue Preferred These Appeals. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Decided By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Waseem UR Rehman, DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Gopisetty Satyanarayana, Nellore vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nellore

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

ITA 441/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyनिर्धारण आ.अपी.सं अपीलधर्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / वर्ा / A.Y. Appellant Respondent / Ita No. Gopisetty Deputy Commissioner Satyanarayana, Of Income Tax, 2010-11 441/Hyd/2019 Nellore Circle-1, [Pan: Aiipg4150B] Nellore Deputy Commissioner Gopisetty Of Income Tax, Satyanarayana, 652/Hyd/2019 2010-11 Circle-1, Nellore Nellore [Pan: Aiipg4150B] निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/02/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 29/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order(S) Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Tirupati (“Learned Cit(A)”), In The Case Sri G. Satyanarayana (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2010-11, Both Assessee & Revenue Preferred These Appeals. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Decided By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Waseem UR Rehman, DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Vibha Subhash Singh, Kharghar vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Kalyan

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

ITA 3740/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhvibha Subhash Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer- 1601 Viswahans, Sector Nfac, Ward 2(2) 35D, Near Bank Of India, Mohan Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Kharghar – 410210 Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan (W), Kalyan - 421301 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Apsps5258R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Rajeev Waglay Respondent By : S. Arunkumar Date Of Hearing 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.02.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 07.08.2023 For A.Y. 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “I. Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 24,97,500 U/S. 69 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 On The Ground That The Appellant Had Neither Tendered The Income Tax Return Nor The Details Of Investment As Stated By The Assessing Officer Without Appreciating The Fact That The Appellant Had Filed The Return Of Income In Response To Notice U/S. 148 On 21.9.2021 Under Acknowledgment No. 550248700210921 & That This Return Was Very Much Available On Income Tax Portal. Ii. Confirming The Above Addition Without Appreciating The Fact That When The Appellant Had Invested Of Rs. 14,00,000 Only In The Property, Higher Value Could Not Have Been Attributed To The Appellant Without Any Basis.

For Appellant: Rajeev WaglayFor Respondent: S. Arunkumar
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69