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

Sukdeb PAN, Paschim Medinipur vs. ITO, Ward 38(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1032/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddyi.T.A. No. 1032/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sukdeb Pan…………....………….......................…….………………….………………………………..………Appellant [Pan : Abcpp 2760 P] Ito, Ward-38(3), Midnapore……..….……………………………………………….…………………...Respondent Appearances By: Shri K. M. Roy, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pravash Roy, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 10, 2017 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dated 31.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Facts Of The Case As Brought Out At Para 3 Page 2 Of The Ld. Cit(A) Order Is Extracted Below For Ready Reference: “The Assessee Is A Trader Of Gold Jewellery. The Business Of The Assessee Is Undertaken In Proprietorship Firm Named & Styled As Jamuna Gold House. During The Year Under Consideration, Specifically On 2Nd April, 2012 The Assessee Has Shown To Have Converted Bullion Weighing 1152.54 Gms Of Gold As Stock In Trade From Investment. The Value Of This Conversion Is Declared At Rs.13,18,282/-. The Market Value Of The Said Gold Jewellery Assuming The Purity Of 99.5% As On 03/04/2012 Is Rs.32,47,463/-. The Ao Have Found That There Is No Cogent Evidence To Justify That The Said Bullion Was Held By The Assessee As Investment In Any Of Earlier Year. He Has Added This Amount Of Undisclosed Income In The Form Of Unexplained Investment In The Current Year.”

Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69

M/S Kalpana Biri Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd., Murshidabad vs. ACIT, Cir- Murshidabad, Murshidabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1020/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11 M/S Kalpana Biri Mfg. Co. Acit, Circle, बनाम / Pvt. Ltd., Vill. & P.O. Murshidabad, 39 R.N. V/S. Auragabad Dist. Tagore Road, P.O. Murshidabad, Berhampur, Pin. 742 101 Pin-742 201 [Pan No. Aabck 7051 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri S.L. Kochar, Advocate & अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 10-11-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxvi, Kolkata Dated 31.03.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-Murshidabad U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 13.02.2013 For Assessment Year 2010-11. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Per Its Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Having Deleted The Addition To Income For Rs.30628425/- As Alleged Unexplained Investment U/S 69 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On Account Of Alleged Suppression Of Value Of Stock.”

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69

Sandhya Shamu Shenvi, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 2839/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. & Sandeep Gosain,J.M. आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././Ita No. 2839/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण व आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण व िनधा"रण वष"ष"ष"ष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 िनधा"रण व Smt. Sandhya Shamu Shenvi Income Tax Officer-Ward-3(3) 301, Jal Tarang, Lokpuram. Thane (W) Thane Vs. Pin-400 610. Mumbai. Pan: Amrps 6570 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri V. Justin -Dr Assessee By: None सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/09/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 03.11.2017 आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)के अ"तग"त आदेश धारा के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य,राजे"" के अनुसार लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार राजे"" के अनुसार -Per Rajendra,Am: राजे"" के अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 12/12/2012,Of Cit(A)-1,Thane The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee,An Individual,Deriving Income From Tuition Fee Filed Her Return Of Income, Declaring Income Of Rs.1.83 Lakhs.The Assessing Officer (Ao) Completed The Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Act, On 08.12.2011, Determining Her Income At Rs.23.84 Lakhs. Assessee Did Not Appear Before Us.No Letter For Adjournment In The Case Was Also Found On The Record.Therefore, We Are Deciding The Issue After Hearing The Departmental Representative (Dr) & On The Basis Of Material Available.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin -DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 69