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

Sunilkumar M. Akkarakaran, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Kalyan

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5622/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 5622/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2012-13 ) Sunilkumar M. Akkarakaran, A-101, Ankit Co-Op Hsg Society, Oppkasturi Plaza, Manpada Road, Dombivili East – 421 201. Pan: Aedpa-1192-C ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax,Circle -3, Kalyan, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan (West) - 421 301 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Hosang B. Irani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/06/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Thane [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 28/06/2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Notice Of Hearing Of The Appeal Was Sent To The Assessee Through Rpad At The Address Mentioned In Form No.36. Despite Repeated Notices, Neither The Assessee Nor The Authorized Representative Of The Assessee Has 2 Ever Appeared On Any Of The Date Of Hearing. The Date Of Hearing Of Appeal & The Date Of Issue Of Notice Are Tabulated Herein Under:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hosang B. Irani
Section 37(1)Section 68

Shri Vrajeshkumar N. Chokshi, Anand vs. ITO, Ward-4, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2163/AHD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Vrajeshkumar N. Chokshi, Income Tax Officer, D-7, Pruthavi Park, B/H. Vs Ward-4, Nasikwada Hall, Umreth, Anand Anand-388220 Pan : Admpc 8418 M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Umesh Agarwal, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/05/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-4, Vadodara (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 19.07.2018. 2. The Assessee, In The Present Case, Is An Individual. As Per The Information Received By The Assessing Officer From The Office Of The Principal Director Of Income-Tax (Investigation), Surat, The Assessee Had Entered Into Certain Transactions In Shares Resulting In Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs.7,92,237/-. Since No Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Reopened The Assessment & Issued A Notice Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act (“The Act’ In Short) After Recording Reasons. In Response To The Said Notice, The Return Of Income Was Filed By The Assessee Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,47,860/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Had Entered Into Share Transactions Through Various Agencies On Bombay Stock Exchange Amounting To Rs.7,92,237/-. According To The Assessing Officer, The Said Shri Vrajeshkumar N Chokshi Vs. Ito Ay : 2009-10 2

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Agarwal, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69

Geetha Sekar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 13 (4), Chennai

ITA 1762/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1762/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Geetha Sekar, The Income Tax Officer, Sp-20, 3Rd Street, 1St Sector, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 13(4), K.K. Nagar,Chennai 600 078. Room No. 406, Ivth Floor, Annexe Building, Aayakar Bhavan, No. 121, [Pan:Ahipg0190N] M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Gopalan, Retd. Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 31.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai, Dated 31.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 12.12.2012 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.8,15,920/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri G. Gopalan, Retd. JCITFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69