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

Kapil Gupta, Sirmaur vs. ACIT Central Circle Shimla, Shimla

The appeals stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1013/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1010/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1011/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1013/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Shri Kapil Gupta Acit (Central) C/O M/S Himgiri Beverages बनाम/ Vs. Shimla (Hp) -171001 Kala Amb – 173030 (Hp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Addpg-0399-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Jain (Ca) A/W Sh. Lovesh Bansal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 To 2023-24 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) a/w Sh. LoveshFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 28Section 69Section 69A

Kapil Gupta, Sirmaur vs. ACIT Central Circle Shimla, Shimla

The appeals stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1012/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1010/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1011/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1013/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Shri Kapil Gupta Acit (Central) C/O M/S Himgiri Beverages बनाम/ Vs. Shimla (Hp) -171001 Kala Amb – 173030 (Hp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Addpg-0399-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Jain (Ca) A/W Sh. Lovesh Bansal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 To 2023-24 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) a/w Sh. LoveshFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 28Section 69Section 69A

Kapil Gupta, Sirmaur vs. ACIT Central Circle Shimla, Shimla

The appeals stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1011/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1010/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1011/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1013/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Shri Kapil Gupta Acit (Central) C/O M/S Himgiri Beverages बनाम/ Vs. Shimla (Hp) -171001 Kala Amb – 173030 (Hp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Addpg-0399-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Jain (Ca) A/W Sh. Lovesh Bansal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 To 2023-24 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) a/w Sh. LoveshFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 28Section 69Section 69A

Kapil Gupta, Sirmaur vs. ACIT Central Shimla, Shimla

The appeals stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1010/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1010/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1011/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1013/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Shri Kapil Gupta Acit (Central) C/O M/S Himgiri Beverages बनाम/ Vs. Shimla (Hp) -171001 Kala Amb – 173030 (Hp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Addpg-0399-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Jain (Ca) A/W Sh. Lovesh Bansal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 To 2023-24 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) a/w Sh. LoveshFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 28Section 69Section 69A

Girish Kumar Konthoujam, Manipur vs. ACIT Circle (Shl-C-(9)(1)), Imphal

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

ITA 231/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Girish Kumar Konthoujam...……..………………….……….……….……Appellant Ningthoukhong Bazar, Ward No.2 Bishnupur, Sub-Division Bishnupur Dist-795126.. [Pan: Ejcpk0452B] Vs. Acit, Circle (Shl-C-(9)(1)), Imphal .……………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Bhupender Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 27, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.08.2024 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Return For Ay 2017-18. As Per A 'Suspicious Transaction Report' (Str) Information Received In Insight Portal Under The Category High Risk Criu/Vru It Revealed By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Made Purchase Of Immovable Property Worth Rs.1,02,50,000/- During The Fy 2016-17 At Bangalore. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By Making Addition U/S 69 Of The Act Of Rs.1,02,50,000/- As Unexplained Investment.

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69