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

Hemani Deepak Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5790/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjeet Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5790/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Hemani Deepak Patel Ito-19(3)(2), बनाम/ 159-B, Lalita Sadan, Room No. 306, Piramal Chambers, S. V. Road, Bandra (W), Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012 Vs. Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafpp 3864 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nihar H. Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Satyanarayana Raju सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 29.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 15.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 27.6.2014, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2005-06 Vide Order Dated 01.3.2013. 2. The Assessee Not Pressing Her Ground # 1 (Qua Reopening Of Assessment U/S. 148 Of The Act), The Only Issue Arising In This Appeal Is The Addition U/S. 68/69 In The Sum Of Rs.15.40 Lacs On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposits Made In Her Bank

For Appellant: Shri Nihar H. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Satyanarayana Raju
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

R.Govindarajulu, Udamalpet vs. ITO, Pollachi

Accordingly, we sustain the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 371/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyi T.A. Nos. 1333/Mds/2014 & 371/Mds/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Shri R. Govindarajulu, The Income Tax Officer, No. 15, Sikkandar Batsha Street, Vs. Ward I(1), Gandhinagar (Po), Udumalpet. Pollachi. [Pan:Ahcpg9679A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mathivanan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2016 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii, Coimbatore Dated 26.02.2014 & 29.09.2014 For The Relevant Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. For The Assessment Year 2009-10, The First Common Ground Raised In The Appeal Is With Regard To Confirmation Of Addition Of ₹. 20,00,000/- Made Under Section 69 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Unexplained Investment In Repayment Of Housing Loan, (2) Confirmation Of Estimation Of Income From Fast Moving Goods At 2

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mathivanan, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

R.Govindarajulu, Udamalpet vs. ITO, Pollachi

Accordingly, we sustain the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1333/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyi T.A. Nos. 1333/Mds/2014 & 371/Mds/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Shri R. Govindarajulu, The Income Tax Officer, No. 15, Sikkandar Batsha Street, Vs. Ward I(1), Gandhinagar (Po), Udumalpet. Pollachi. [Pan:Ahcpg9679A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mathivanan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2016 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii, Coimbatore Dated 26.02.2014 & 29.09.2014 For The Relevant Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. For The Assessment Year 2009-10, The First Common Ground Raised In The Appeal Is With Regard To Confirmation Of Addition Of ₹. 20,00,000/- Made Under Section 69 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Unexplained Investment In Repayment Of Housing Loan, (2) Confirmation Of Estimation Of Income From Fast Moving Goods At 2

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mathivanan, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69