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

Smt. Rita Ben Niravbhai Patel, Surat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in in ITA No

ITA 578/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.576/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Smt.Hemanginiben B Patel, V The Deputy Commissioner Of 28, Sangam Society, Parle Point, Surat. Income Tax, Circle-3, Surat. S. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afipp 2238 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.577/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) Smt. Bhavnaben Arvindbhai Patel, V The Deputy Commissioner Of 27, Adarshnagar Society, Ambatalawadi S. Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Katargam, Surat – 395004. Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp 4358 M (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.578/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) Smt. Ritaben Niravbhai Patel, V The Deputy Commissioner Of 1003-1004, Santvan Heights, S. Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Laxmikant Ashram Road, Katargam, Surat. Surat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alxpp 0357 M (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi - Ca Respondent By : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Three Appeals Filed By Different Assessees, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. Cit(A)], Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Order & Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi - CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271A

Smt. Bhavnaben Arvindbhai Patel, Surat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in in ITA No

ITA 577/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.576/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Smt.Hemanginiben B Patel, V The Deputy Commissioner Of 28, Sangam Society, Parle Point, Surat. Income Tax, Circle-3, Surat. S. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afipp 2238 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.577/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) Smt. Bhavnaben Arvindbhai Patel, V The Deputy Commissioner Of 27, Adarshnagar Society, Ambatalawadi S. Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Katargam, Surat – 395004. Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp 4358 M (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.578/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) Smt. Ritaben Niravbhai Patel, V The Deputy Commissioner Of 1003-1004, Santvan Heights, S. Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Laxmikant Ashram Road, Katargam, Surat. Surat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alxpp 0357 M (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi - Ca Respondent By : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Three Appeals Filed By Different Assessees, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. Cit(A)], Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Order & Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi - CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271A

Smt. Hemanginiben B. Patel, Surat vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in in ITA No

ITA 576/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.576/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Smt.Hemanginiben B Patel, V The Deputy Commissioner Of 28, Sangam Society, Parle Point, Surat. Income Tax, Circle-3, Surat. S. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afipp 2238 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.577/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) Smt. Bhavnaben Arvindbhai Patel, V The Deputy Commissioner Of 27, Adarshnagar Society, Ambatalawadi S. Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Katargam, Surat – 395004. Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp 4358 M (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.578/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) Smt. Ritaben Niravbhai Patel, V The Deputy Commissioner Of 1003-1004, Santvan Heights, S. Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Laxmikant Ashram Road, Katargam, Surat. Surat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alxpp 0357 M (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi - Ca Respondent By : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Three Appeals Filed By Different Assessees, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. Cit(A)], Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Order & Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi - CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271A

Mr. Rajen Rasiklal Vora, Mumbai vs. ITO 26 (2)(5), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6724/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 6724/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) Mr. Rajen Rasiklal Vora The Income Tax Officer S-1, Second Floor, The Sion Ward 26(2)(5), Mumbai- फनाभ/ Ushakunj Chs, Sion (East), 400 051 Mumbai-400 022 Vs. (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaapv7822R अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : None प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Bharat Andhle, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 26.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-38, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-48/Ito-26(2)(5)/It-465/2016-17 Vide Dated 29.09.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(2)(5), Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2009- 10 Vide Order Dated 04.01.2016 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Mr. Rajen Rasiklal Vora; Ay 10-11 Act On Estimation Of Gross Profit At The Rate Of 12.5% Of The Bogus Purchases. For This, Assessee Has Raised Following Two Grounds :-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Sri Sobat Singh, Sonebhadra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Mirzapur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 253/ALLD/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad05 Jul 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Sobat Singh V. Income Tax Officer Ward- Murdhwa Renukoot, Sonebhadra, 3(4) Uttar Pradesh -231221. Mirzapur. Tan/Pan: Azups2354N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A.K. Singh, Cit ( Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2021 O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)- Allahabad, Both Dated 21.12.2017 For The A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. For The A.Y.2007-08, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds.- 1. “That In Any View Of The Matter Assessment Made On Income Of Rs. 17,64,000/- By Order Dated On 30.01.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Is Bad Both On The Facts & In Law. 2. That Is Any View Of The Matter The Proceeding Initiated U/S 148 Is Illegal Proceedings Since The Reasons For Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Was Not Supplied To The Assessee Nor Any Opportunity Was Provided By The Assessing Officer In Making Compliance & Simply Assessing Officer On The Basis Of His Own Presumption Made Addition Which Action Is Highly Unjustified.

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, CIT ( Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44ASection 69Section 69A