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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Patiala vs. Pawan Kumar Bansal, Samana

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1384/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1123/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal Dcit-Central Circle बनाम/ Prop. Kissan Trading Co. Aaykar Bhawan, Leela Bhawan Shop No. 11, New Anaj Mandi Patiala, Punjab – 147101 Vs. Samana, Punjab – 147101 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aatbp-1986-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1384/Chandi/2025] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Acit-Central Cricle Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal बनाम/ 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Prop. Kissan Trading Co. Near Leela Bhawan Patiala Shop No. 11, New Anaj Mandi Vs. Samana, Punjab – 147101 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aatbp-1986-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-05-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 02-06-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 153ASection 153D

Pawan Kumar Bansal Prop. Kissan Trading Co. Samana, Punjab vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Patiala, Paitala

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1123/CHANDI/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1123/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal Dcit-Central Circle बनाम/ Prop. Kissan Trading Co. Aaykar Bhawan, Leela Bhawan Shop No. 11, New Anaj Mandi Patiala, Punjab – 147101 Vs. Samana, Punjab – 147101 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aatbp-1986-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1384/Chandi/2025] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Acit-Central Cricle Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal बनाम/ 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Prop. Kissan Trading Co. Near Leela Bhawan Patiala Shop No. 11, New Anaj Mandi Vs. Samana, Punjab – 147101 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aatbp-1986-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-05-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 02-06-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 153ASection 153D

Uvmar Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-3(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4131/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jun 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.4131/Chny/2025 (ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Uvmar Enterprises India The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Vs. Corp. Ward 3(3) 22, Burkit Road, T Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Aabcu-7711-J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. P.S. Prabhakar, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.04.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.06.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Dated 04.12.2025, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) For The Assessment Year (A.Y) 2017-18 Against The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Passed By The Ao, Dated 04.12.2019. :-2-: Ita. No.4131/Chny/2025

For Appellant: Mr. P.S. Prabhakar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69