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

Santosh Kumar Keshari, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 25(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 190/KOL/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Santosh Kumar Keshari….…………………..………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant 14/15, Topsia Road Tiljala Kohinoor Market Kolkata – 700 039 [Pan : Agvpk 4645 G] Income Tax Officer, Ward-25(3), Kolkata………………………………………...…….……….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri V. Dasgupta, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 2Nd , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 24Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 22/12/2016, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & The Assessing Officer States That He Is In The Business Of Rejected Shoes. He Filed His Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year 2011-12, On 22/03/2012, Declaring Total Income At Rs.1,51,154/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. The Assessee Was Asked To Explain A Deposit Of A Sum Of Rs.54,82,600/-, In Cash In The Bank Account Maintained By The Assessee With Sbi, Picnic Garden Branch, Kolkata. The Assessee Explained That The Deposits Were Made In The Said Account From His Daily Sales To Local Parties. It Was Explained That Monies Collected From Street Vendors, Who Sold Rejected Shoes Were Deposited In The Account & Withdrawals Were From Atm To Make Payments For Purchases. The Assessing Officer Found That No Evidence Was Filed By The Assessee In Support Of These Contention. As The Assessee Has Disclosed Turnover Of Rs.10,18,276/-, The Difference Of Rs.44,64,324/- Was Added As Income. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal, Without Success.

Section 250

Sunil Balasubramaniam Shankar, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 18(3), Chennai

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

ITA 1682/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1682/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Shri Sunil Balasubramaniam Shankar, The Income Tax Officer, No. 6/45, 4Th Street, Avvai Thiru Nagar, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 18(3), Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Bbfps4197B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sunil Balasubramaniam Shankar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Sagadevan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 10.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of ₹.34,86,141/- Towards Unexplained Expenditure Under Section 69 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] By Treating Them As Income From Other Sources.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil BalasubramaniamFor Respondent: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69